← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 13722 | Posts: 151 | Started: 2004-05-15
2004-05-15 07:57 | User Profile
Prospects for Our Movement Jared Taylor?s talk at the 2004 American Renaissance Conference
Good morning. I thought I would speak today about prospects for our movement, because this is something people ask me about frequently. ?What are our chances?? ?Is there any hope?? Of course there is hope. In fact, for reasons, I?ll go into, I am more optimistic than I?ve been in some time.
But first of all, just what is our movement? What are we fighting for? I think the simplest way of putting it is that we just want to be left alone. We are the heirs to the magnificent culture and traditions of Europe, we are a biologically distinct group known as white people, we want to be left alone to carry forward our traditions and to pursue our own destiny. It is as simple as that. We wish other groups well, but we cannot welcome them in our midst because they are not us. We have a deep, healthy loyalty to our own kind, and we know populations are not replaceable or interchangeable. We have the right to be us, and only we can be us.
This is something everyone else takes it for granted whether they are Tibetans or New Guineans or Bantus or Maoris. In Brazil, when people occasionally stumble on Indian tribes that have never contacted the outside world they have a very clear policy: they leave them strictly alone and keep loggers and anthropologists out. Why? Because even stone-age tribes of 30 people have the right to be left alone.
We are the only people who are not supposed to want to preserve our way of life for our children. Only white people have no rights to pride in peoplehood. Our movement, of course, is to take back that right and to ensure for our descendents a continued existence as a distinct people with a glorious heritage and a promising destiny.
But before I tell you why I am optimistic about our prospects, let me give you an interesting perspective on our plight. You will recall last year when candidate for the Democratic nomination Howard Dean said his party should broaden its appeal even to include, as he put it: ?guys with Confederate flags on their pick-up trucks.?
Naturally, since Mr. Dean mentioned the Confederacy without being unremittingly hostile to it he was roasted from every quarter, but of all the foolishness said and written about his remarks, I was particularly struck by an essay by black author Shelby Steele in the Nov. 13 Wall Street Journal.
He wrote that Mr. Dean was ?playing identity politics,? that he was ?using identity to seek political power in precisely the same way that Rev. Al Sharpton does.? ?For at least a minute,? he goes on to write, ?Howard Dean tried to be a racial leader demagoging his Confederate-flag white people.?
What a stupid thing to say! Mr. Dean was not making a racial appeal. He was saying only that the Democratic Party needed to broaden its appeal beyond its core constituency of left-handed Lesbians and Hispanic nudists, and warmed-over Communists. That?s all he was saying. The party should have something to say to more ordinary Americans, including Americans with battle flags on their trucks. It was an entirely reasonable thing to say.
Of course, Mr. Steele, who is black, thought Mr. Dean was thinking racially because blacks think racially, and cannot get it through their heads that whites do not. Not even a smart black like Shelby Steele understands how utterly denatured white people are. What he wrote said nothing about Howard Dean and a lot about blacks.
But then Mr. Steele goes on to say something considerably less stupid.
?It is quite acceptable for either party to explicitly go after the black, Hispanic, or even the Jewish vote. In fact both parties gain an indispensable moral authority by doing so.
But it is absolutely verboten for either party, or any white candidate, to appeal to whites as a racial identity group. Racial identity is simply forbidden to whites in America and across the entire Western world. Black children today are hammered with the idea of racial identity and pride, yet racial pride in whites constitutes a grave evil. Say ?I?m white and I?m proud? and you are a Nazi.
?Today?s whites, the world over, cannot openly have a racial identity.?
What is interesting about this is that unlike most people, who pretend that racial identity is bad whoever has it, and that it is on the way out as we march towards the ?colorblind? ideal, Mr. Steele is perfectly frank about the double standard. Racial pride is fine for blacks and everyone else, but verboten ? his word ? for whites.
Not just American whites, mind you, but all whites everywhere. Every one of us is guilty because, as Mr. Steele explains, of slavery, colonialism, and Nazism. So we do have a collective identity after all ? a purely negative identity of guilt and self-hatred.
Now, before you start seething about the obvious unfairness of this, let?s recognize progress when we see it. Here it is in the nation?s largest-circulation paper. Everyone else can be proud of his race but us. Now, this came right at the time Charles Murray has been explaining in a best-selling book that just about everything significant ever done by human beings was done by white people. So I suspect that for at least a few readers, Mr. Steele provided just the ray of light they needed to see something they never saw before. A few people must have read that article and said to themselves, ?Now wait a minute,? and started thinking for a change.
I have met Shelby Steele, and he struck me as a decent sort of fellow. He doesn?t hate white people the way a lot of blacks do. He?s married to a white person, and I suspect he doesn?t realize that what he has written is, in effect, a death sentence for us and our civilization.
No group can survive without group identity. This is a law of nature. Deny to whites their identity as a group and you condemn them to obliteration and oblivion. And that, of course, is precisely what we refuse! We are not going quietly.
And the reason that I am cautiously optimistic is that I see sure signs that more whites than ever before are refusing to be consigned to oblivion.
And by the way, Mr. Steele is right to talk about whites world-wide, not just American whites, because this is a world-wide struggle. All whites, whether they speak Norwegian or Romanian, whether they live in Europe or Africa, all whites are brothers in this struggle. That is why at this conference we have people from England, France, South Africa, Canada, Australia and from all over the United States. Ours is a world-wide community, and what happens in Italy or Switzerland or New Zealand is just as important to our race as what happens in Nevada.
Let me give you a little example of how this world-wide community works. AR has readers in many foreign countries. Its articles are mainly about what is happening in the United States, but our brothers in the entire white world share our struggles and challenges. Late last year, one of our readers in Sweden offered to write an article for AR about racial developments in Scandinavia ? because, of course, their struggle is our struggle.
It was a good article ? much appreciated by Americans, but not just by Americans. Large parts of it were reprinted in a magazine in South Africa. And a little later a French magazine translated parts of it and wrote a long, sympathetic commentary on it for French readers. And so you have an article about Scandinavia written by a Swede for an American audience picked up by magazines in other countries, too ? because ours is a struggle that crosses all borders. We have comrades in every corner of the globe among every white population everywhere.
And, frankly, much of my optimism for our movement arises from the successes of our comrades fighting on other fronts. But not all of it.
There is some change in the United States, too. I have been talking frankly and publicly about racial matters for more than 12 years. When I first started, it was very heavy going. I would go on the radio, and every caller and every talk show host was hostile. Not any more. I can get on the radio and talk plainly about the clear, legitimate interests of whites, and half the callers may well agree with me 100 percent. Sure, I still get plenty of screamers and hypocrites, but it is a big change from 12 years ago.
More and more Americans are able to read the writing on the wall ? partly because the letters get bigger and bigger every year.
There is a consciousness of race among white Americans that is just waiting for a legitimate way to express itself. I became aware of this some years ago, when I was doing a lot of radio work on the subject of race and crime. Whites are fascinated by racial statistics about crime. As soon you start quoting authoritative police statistics, they can?t get enough. On no other subject have I ever done a radio program in a city and then have competing stations in the same city call me up and say ?Wow, that was a great program; can you come on our station?? Whites can talk about black and Hispanic crime with no apparent feelings of guilt at all. The challenge, of course, is to get them to talk about neighborhoods, about schools, about their country with the same confidence and clarity.
Likewise, I am pleased by the reaction to President Bush?s amnesty plan. Condemnation has been widespread. The public reasoning, of course, is that we must not reward people who jumped the cue and came here illegally, but I detect a consciousness of race that gives a real potency to this opposition to amnesty. Everyone knows it is amnesty for Mexicans, and in their bones American don?t want their country to turn into Mexico.
There are other signs of change. Like the telephone call I got from a fireman not long ago. His group was scheduled for sensitivity training. He had heard from other firemen what it was gong to be like, and he and his crew wanted to be ready for it. He had a surprisingly sophisticated knowledge about the history of slavery, of the mess Africa has made of itself since decolonization, and of different ways to measure IQ. He called to check up on a few points, and I was able to give him some useful pointers and references. But what particularly struck me was his attitude. He and several other firemen were determined to show the sensitivity instructor no mercy. I?ll never forget what he said: ?We?re going to make her cry.?
I never heard back from that guy, but it is that kind of determination, that kind of understanding of what is at stake that is, I believe, growing unstoppably.
Just the day before yesterday I got a telephone call from a university professor. He has been an AR subscriber for years, and he was calling to tell me about a new spirit of toughness and determination among white students. He says he is seeing backbone and racial consciousness in white students like never before, was asking if we might be interested in an article about this. Well, of course. And here?s a sign of the times.
The problem, of course, is that we have no political voice. Our political system makes things very difficult for us?but not impossible. David Duke was elected to the state house in Louisiana despite overwhelming opposition from government and media. Frank Borzellieri made quite a splash on a New York school board for some time. Yesterday we heard from Perry Lorenz about his run for the school board. At the local level we do not face a monolithic party structure.
I know very little about running for office, but that, I believe, is where we need to make better efforts. We have won the intellectual, moral, and historical arguments, but we rarely get the chance to make them publicly. What we need most is to get our hands on decision-making power. I believe understanding of race is steadily growing among whites an we must translate this into useful action.
And that, of course, is where our brothers and sisters overseas have been so much more successful than we. In just about every white country there is a nationalist political party that stands explicitly for national preservation ? sometimes even for nothing less than ethnic or racial preservation ? and gets votes because of this. And this is hugely important.
Most of the time, the American press simply ignores these parties, and screeches dutifully when it does not ignore them, but things are bubbling in Europe in a way that has no parallel here.
Here, in no particular order, are some developments in Europe that, taken together, add up to very important changes.
SWITZERLAND
In Switzerland, the Swiss Peoples Party first swept onto the scene in the 2000 elections. Its campaigned for an end to liberal immigration and asylum laws, and its posters showed dark-skinned hands tearing up a Swiss flag. You can?t get much more explicit than that. The Peoples Party is now the number one party in the country. Its leader, Christoph Blocher (the media love to call him a ?fervent nationalist,? so you know he is a fine fellow) was just elected to the 7-member Swiss cabinet. The cabinet is now talking about dismantling the Swiss Commission Against Racism. This is real progress.
RUSSIA
Russian politics are not that much in the news here, but from our point of view they are very encouraging. The biggest party, United Russia, which is led by Vladimir Putin, is thoroughly nationalist by American standards, but it takes a back seat to the parties that are number two and number three. Vladimir Zhirinovsky?s Liberal Democratic Party is second in the Duma with 11% of the vote. Just this month Mr. Zhirinovsky was in the news for saying, ?The white race is perishing. Every day there are fewer and fewer of us. We are half as many as we were 40 years ago. We must unite against the yellow peril and green menace.? (By green he means Muslims.) Pretty straightforward.
Zhirinovsky has a reputation as a clown, and there is so much nationalist sentiment in Russia that another party was set up just last September, called the Motherland Party, to put a more serious face on nationalism. It?s motto is ?Russians Must Take Back Russia for Themselves,? and once again, you cannot get much more explicit than that. In the elections last December, it came in third the nation, and was first or second in some constituencies in Moscow and Petersberg.
So, with the top three political parties clearly nationalist, Russia is in solid hands.
BELGIUM
In Belgium, of course, there is the Vlaams Blok, which is particularly powerful in the Flemish-speaking part of the country, but gets 12 percent of the vote nationally and has 18 seats in the 150-seat parliament. In the United States, that would be like having 50 Congressmen. These are serious people who have a real effect on policy. Their slogan is ?Our People First.?
GERMANY
Germany is of course cowed because of the Second World War, but more Germans are becoming uncowed. According to a recent poll almost two-thirds of Germans said they believed too many foreigners in Germany.
AUSTRIA
In Austria, what is most important is that Jörg Haider?s Freedom Party is still in the ruling coalition. As you will remember, the European Union threw a fit when the Freedom Party entered the government, but after a while all that died down. Europe has had to accept Austria, Freedom Party and all. Now, it is the people who wanted to boycott Austria who look foolish.
DENMARK
Probably everyone here has heard of Pia Kjaersgaard, head of the Peoples Party of Denmark. She, too, gets right to the point. In her new year?s address, she said that a complete halt to immigration is ?the only solution to prevent the country from turning into a ghetto like France, Germany or England.? She has also proposed that any foreigner convicted of a crime in Denmark be departed along with his family, his parents, and his grandparents.
Her party comrade Mogens Camre once noted that ?there are 200 times as many Muslims in the world as Danes and we don?t want them living here and destroying our country as they have destroyed their own.?
This party also runs very explicit campaign posters. One showed a mass meeting of armed Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East, with the text ?The future of Denmark? Your country?your choice.? Another was a picture of a little blonde Danish girl, age four or five, with the text, ?When she retires, there will be a Muslim majority in Denmark.?
The Peoples Party gets only about 12 percent of the vote, but its popularity has forced the ruling coalition to pass some of the best immigration-control laws in all of Europe. Now, most of the political parties are firmly on the side of good sense. In 2002, when Interior Minister Karen Jespersen suggested that any asylum seeker who committed a crime be sent to a desert island, a poll found that 75 percent of the population supported her. And, indeed, the Prime Minister, Poul Rasmussen, stoutly defended her sentiments. And these people aren?t even in the Peoples Party.
Then there is Tom Behnke, he?s not in Pia Kjaersgaard?s party either, who suggested in 1997 that the best way to handle Somali asylum seekers was to load them on a plane, fly them over Africa, and push them out in parachutes. One of his Copenhagen constituents got on the evening news and said, ?don?t bother with the parachutes.? And his Copenhagen constituents keep sending him back to the Folketing or parliament.
Denmark now probably takes the firmest position on immigration of any European country. The country has put out the ?no vacancy? sign, and any foreigner who breaks laws ? whisht, gone. And it is important to note that Denmark never got the cold shoulder from the European Union that Austria got. That policy of righteous indignation is dead and buried.
HOLLAND
In January, Holland issued an all-party parliamentary report saying that the Dutch attempt to create an integrated multi-ethnic society has failed. This is Holland, one of the most liberal, over-run countries in Europe. And it is acting on this policy, too. In February, the Dutch parliament voted to deport 26,000 phony asylum-seekers. Until now they had let phonies stay, but they are finally getting tough. This will be one of the biggest deportations in Europe since the expulsions of Germans after the war, and will mean removal of one in every 600 people from the country. Needless to say, the public is delighted.
And there are other developments in Holland. The city of Rotterdam, for example, which has more immigrants than any other Dutch city has finally had enough. The city council just decided it won?t issue a residence permit to anyone who doesn?t speak Dutch and who does not have a job with an income at least 20% more than minimum wage. The council will no longer approve cheap housing but will grant building permits only for expensive houses.
A spokesman for the City Council says this: ?We want people to work and we want people to learn Dutch. We want Rotterdam to look like any other Dutch city but at the moment we have more unemployed people and crime than anywhere else.?
He says the city is tired of immigrants ?of the wrong sort.?
It is a significant departure for the Dutch to admit that there can be immigrants ?of the wrong sort,? and let us hope this is a sign of thing to come.
BRITAIN
In Britain, the British National Party has 16 elected councilors. These are like city councilors, and have only local influence, but this is a start.
I won?t go into details but in SERBIA and ITALY, there are firmly nationalist parties sharing power, and in PORTUGAL a nationalist part has a strong and increasingly influential presence.
VIRTUOUS CYCLES
Now, what is interesting here is the power of political minorities. A party that is firmly in favor of immigration-control usually has to win no more than 10 or 15 percent of the vote in order to have a dramatic effect on immigration policy. Their policies are supported by so many people that other parties have to steal their clothes just to save their skins.
This has happened over and over. Once nationalists have a political voice, it becomes impossible to ignore them.
The other interesting example of the power of the minority is that as soon as one or two European countries start tightening their policies, it has a cascading effect on other countries. Denmark, for example, is now basically closed to immigration. What is the effect of this? It puts more immigration pressure on Sweden, which still suffers from suicidal delusions about the interchangeability of populations. However, after much squawking about the Danes, the Swedes have now sharply curtailed their intake of refugees and asylum-seekers. They?ve got to face the music.
With the clampdown in Holland I just mentioned, there is a scramble of illegals to get into Britain, which has the reputation of being a soft touch. And this, of course, has provoked sharp cries within Britain to keep them out. Let us hope those cries are heeded.
What we are seeing in Europe, therefore, is I believe the beginning of what could become a virtuous cycle. A few countries take sensible steps. The run-off of unwanted immigrants then moves to the countries with the stupider policies, who then have to implement less stupid policies to keep things in balance. And so on, with the result that gradually all countries end up with reasonably intelligent policies. Anyone who is left out will be swamped with the world?s riff raff and have to tighten up.
This is the opposite of Gresham?s law ? good policy chases out bad. That, at least, is the direction Europe is now moving. It is encouraged in this, of course, by the fact that those countries with fewer non-white immigrants have less crime, fewer social problems, etc. It doesn?t take long before the benefits of restrictions ? and the folly of lax admissions ? become clear for all to see.
Rotterdam is another good example of comparative experience. The Dutch city with the most foreigners, has finally recognized the crazy mistake it has made, and wants, in the words of a city council spokesman, ?to look like any other Dutch city.?
Europeans travel a lot within Europe, and they see dark-skinned bums sleeping on the streets on Rotterdam. In Denmark they don?t see dark-skinned bums sleeping on the streets, and they are not so stupid as to be unable to understand that immigration has something to do with this.
The US, unfortunately, does not benefit from either of these processes ? the power of minority parties or the intelligent policies of neighbors. Like Britain, our political system makes it very difficult for small parties to get representation. If we had a proportional representation system, in which Congress represented national opinion rather than winner-take-all Congressional districts, we would have a very different political picture.
Could an immigration-control party, even one that advocated explicit racial consciousness, get 10 percent of the national vote in the United States? Sure it could. And if, as is the case of many European countries, that translated into 10 percent of Congress, what a tremendous difference it would make. Imagine 45 outspoken Tom Tancredos instead of just one! In a system that really represented political opinion rather than maintain the stranglehold of just two parties, our situation would be unrecognizably different.
However, both we and the Brits have to work with the system we have. We are not suddenly going to get proportional representation.
Nor do Americans have the benefit of a sudden comparison with the results of intelligent policies practiced by neighbors. If anything, Canada is even more stupid about these things than we are.
So, once again, why are the Europeans making better progress than we are? It is not because their media are more sensible ? they are just as bad ? or because their populations think differently from ours. In some cases, I think their activists have been more effective and energetic than ours. But I think it is mainly because they have more democratic systems that better reflect what ordinary voters really think. And they have the clear example of countries that may be just an hour?s drive away.
So, I have reasons to be optimistic about the United States, but I am especially encouraged by events in Europe.
Now, what about pressure the United States can put on Europeans to make sure their immigration policies stay stupid? I think probably less than at any time in the last 50 years. For all sorts of reasons, the war in Iraq being one of them, there is a distinctly anti-American feeling in Europe. When it comes to immigration, Europeans will thumb their noses at us, and God bless them.
And eventually, they may have the same effect-by-example on us that the more intelligently-run countries in Europe are having on the ones that are stupidly run. The contrast between a sane, healthy, white Europe and a confused, polyglot, Third-World United States will become simply too great to ignore.
And so, to return to the question with which I began: What are our prospects? In a global context, we are making progress. Great damage has already been done, even in our ancient European heartland, but our cousins across the Atlantic are showing very heartening signs of sanity.
However, to the question ?what are our chances?? the real answer is ?It doesn?t matter.? As all of you realize, our duty and our choice of action are unaffected by our prospects, whether they are bright or dim. The chance of success in no way changes the nature of our obligation to our ancestors and to our children.
If I start talking about this at any length about this I am likely to lose my composure, so I will say only this.
I will say only this: that as men of the West, our duty is clear. It is clear whether eventually we fail or succeed. This is not a game in which we place our bets according to how we calculate the odds. The odds don?t affect our commitment at all. Our cause is the central challenge of our age, the number one responsibility of our generation. Win or lose, we are committed to this struggle and we commit ourselves gladly. Gladly because we know we are right. We have on our side every law of nature and morality. History, biology, human nature, and the accumulated wisdom of our ancestors all clearly show us the path we must take.
Before the Battle of Trafalgar ?in one of those terrible fratricidal wars we hope never to fight again ? Nelson sent a message to the fleet: ?England expects every man to do his duty.? Duty, ladies and gentlemen, is the message we read in all the great works of our civilization. Duty is the message we read in the portraits of our grandparents and in the faces of our sons and daughters. And if we not only read that message but act upon it, we will assure for our descendents the future they deserve, a future to match their inspiring past.
[url]http://www.amren.com/news/news04/0402/27/jtconf2004talk.html[/url]
2004-05-15 22:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]But first of all, just what is our movement? What are we fighting for? I think the simplest way of putting it is that we just want to be left alone. We are the heirs to the magnificent culture and traditions of Europe, we are a biologically distinct group known as white people, we want to be left alone to carry forward our traditions and to pursue our own destiny. It is as simple as that. We wish other groups well, but we cannot welcome them in our midst because they are not us. We have a deep, healthy loyalty to our own kind, and we know populations are not replaceable or interchangeable. We have the right to be us, and only we can be us......
Before the Battle of Trafalgar ?in one of those terrible fratricidal wars we hope never to fight again ? Nelson sent a message to the fleet: ?England expects every man to do his duty.? Duty, ladies and gentlemen, is the message we read in all the great works of our civilization. Duty is the message we read in the portraits of our grandparents and in the faces of our sons and daughters. And if we not only read that message but act upon it, we will assure for our descendents the future they deserve, a future to match their inspiring past.
[url]http://www.amren.com/news/news04/0402/27/jtconf2004talk.html[/url][/QUOTE]
More inspiring words from the type of person and organization perfectly suited to lead a rival of western and european culture. And which I think would be a perfect receptacle for cooperation with the logical aims of this forum, and which if one is serious about our movement, and thinking about starting a real aboveground organization and getting seriously into politics one should support, re: [url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=13693]Starting Organizations - 501C or 527[/url].
Unfortunately there will always be someone who says people like Jerod Taylor aren't pure enough, cause they had lunch with a jew a couple of months ago or something. Anyone want to guess what "Vitebe" said about AmRen? I can guarantee it wasn't terribly complimentary. Anyone favorably inclined toward him and his point of view can do a search if you disagree. Of course there aren't any Trisk supportors anymore here - they seem to have all mysteriously vanished. As is a common fate in such instances.
2004-05-15 23:58 | User Profile
Unfortunately there will always be someone who says people like Jerod Taylor aren't pure enough
Except in Taylor's case -- the shoe fits.
Taylor believes Jews should be welcomed into the movement, and on his yahoo mailing list he has a Jewish Supremacist riding herd on anyone who attempts to discuss the Jewish Question.
2004-05-16 00:11 | User Profile
There is only one way to solve America's cultural problems: Name The Jew.
The reason that AMERICA IS IN THE MESS THAT IT IS IN IS BECAUSE NO ONE EVER NAMED THE JEW EXCEPT IN WHISPERS OR BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
-- Do Blacks run the media? No, Jews do.
-- Do Mexicans fund leftist causes to the tune of TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars per year? Nope, but Jews do.
-- Do Asians sponsor "racial diversity" programs all over America? No. But Jews do.
See a trend there? Good.
NAME THE JEW.
2004-05-16 04:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Except in Taylor's case -- the shoe fits.
Taylor believes Jews should be welcomed into the movement, and on his yahoo mailing list he has a Jewish Supremacist riding herd on anyone who attempts to discuss the Jewish Question.[/QUOTE] Letting Jews into the pro-White movement would be worse than letting Negroes into the pro-White movement (if they wanted to join). FAR worse. Not only are Jews the worst liars on the planet, they are the source of the majority of our problems. Of course everyone here knows this, but someone ought to give Taylor a clue.
The most dangerous organizations in America right now are the AIPAC, ZOA, JINSA, and similar Jewish political groups. In fact, those groups are not just a danger to America; they're a danger to the entire world! Israel's nuclear arsenal, including its submarine fleet (fortunately still small), are growing from the steady stream of US tax dollars that are being sent to Israel, and eventually Israel will be able to threaten all the world's nations with "the Samson option." And if Jews succeed in removing enough combat-worthy small arms from the US population, they'll have the US nuclear arsenal more readily at their service, too. Hell, they've already got the US military fighting their wars for them -- their only limitation at this point is the need for a pretext. Things can still get a LOT worse, folks.
2004-05-16 12:58 | User Profile
what i get from this article is that things are happening in europe such as the rise of the BNP and FN, and may end up causing similar polical changes here...maybe
2004-05-16 18:57 | User Profile
All I want for Christmas is my 2 front teeth....er, I mean, an end to immigration into North America and Europe.
That's all I care about. if Jared Taylor in any way helps this proceed, he's a hero in my book.
Jay
2004-05-16 22:10 | User Profile
The Jews are like a drop of oil in a bucket of water or like a cancer cell in the human body, all they need is a point to start from and then they will spread till they take over.
While I for one don't belong to any group or organization I can see why the movement should not let the Jews into the group.
2004-05-17 06:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Letting Jews into the pro-White movement would be worse than letting Negroes into the pro-White movement (if they wanted to join). FAR worse. Not only are Jews the worst liars on the planet, they are the source of the majority of our problems. Of course everyone here knows this, but someone ought to give Taylor a clue.
[/QUOTE] He has a clue. Read some of his articles. However he thinks Am. Ren. and any hope of mainstream appeal would vanish if it became an explicitly anti-semitic organization and banned all jews from membership.
As for letting jews into the pro-white movement, its already happened my friend. Who are two popular writers of articles on this forum? Shamir and Norman Finklestein.
And if Trisk was around here, I'd remind him that the Danish Populist Party, which he supports, I'm very sure allows jews too. True you must be very careful they don't come to control the group your working with.
Attitudes like this mimicking Trisk's, are perfect reasons why WN voters will never fill a broom closet.
2004-05-17 08:11 | User Profile
Okiereddust,
Great Post!
[QUOTE] More inspiring words from the type of person and organization perfectly suited to lead a rival of western and european culture. And which I think would be a perfect receptacle for cooperation with the logical aims of this forum, and which if one is serious about our movement, and thinking about starting a real aboveground organization and getting seriously into politics one should support, re: Starting Organizations - 501C or 527.
Unfortunately there will always be someone who says people like Jerod Taylor aren't pure enough, cause they had lunch with a jew a couple of months ago or something. Anyone want to guess what "Vitebe" said about AmRen? I can guarantee it wasn't terribly complimentary. Anyone favorably inclined toward him and his point of view can do a search if you disagree. Of course there aren't any Trisk supportors anymore here - they seem to have all mysteriously vanished. As is a common fate in such instances. [/QUOTE]
2004-05-17 16:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] As for letting jews into the pro-white movement, its already happened my friend. Who are two popular writers of articles on this forum? Shamir and Norman Finklestein. [/QUOTE]Huh? How does quoting or republishing the works of Jewish writers on subjects where they happen to agree with us, or where they provide evidence to support our point of view in some way, constitute "letting jews into the pro-white movement"?
There's a world of difference between reading the writings of the occasional Jewish renegade, and actually letting Jews into one's organizations and giving them control, or a veto power over all matters that concern Jews.
We've seen how Jews, via neo-cons and Randian libertarians, can infilitate and take over organizations and silence any debate they consider against Jewish interests.
It's a slippery slope to let any Jews in; I am sure there are plenty of exceptions, but how do you make the proper exceptions without alienating your base and making yourself vulnerable to a take over?
2004-05-17 17:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]He has a clue. Read some of his articles. However he thinks Am. Ren. and any hope of mainstream appeal would vanish if it became an explicitly anti-semitic organization and banned all jews from membership. [/QUOTE]
If this is Taylor's strategy, it's a pretty damn stupid strategy.
Avoiding what you call "explicit anti-Semitism" hasn't gotten Taylor or AmRen a thing except 5 minutes on the tube every once in a while (a long while).
Moreover, Taylor is already on the SPLC's 40 people to watch list, and AmRen is considered an hate group by the ADL -- which means we can pretty much assume that the FBI shares this opinion.
So, if embracing Jews is indeed part of some kind of strategy to increase the broad appel of his organization, what in your opinion has it gotten him?
2004-05-17 18:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]Huh? How does quoting or republishing the works of Jewish writers on subjects where they happen to agree with us, or where they provide evidence to support our point of view in some way, constitute "letting jews into the pro-white movement"?
Hey, we're a internet cyber organization. All we deal with is printed text. Whenever a printed word is posted, it has some authority.
There's a world of difference between reading the writings of the occasional Jewish renegade, and actually letting Jews into one's organizations and giving them control, or a veto power over all matters that concern Jews.
Giving them veto power? I think Jerod has hardly gone this far. Remember, Am. Ren. is a small movement.
Maybe you could show me these threads again where this kind of thing was discussed.
Besides, Am. Ren., Buchanan, etc. don't have to define our movement, just because we occasionally say a few good things about it. Like Trisk et. al. always seemed to think.
We've seen how Jews, via neo-cons and Randian libertarians, can infilitate and take over organizations and silence any debate they consider against Jewish interests.
It's a slippery slope to let any Jews in; I am sure there are plenty of exceptions, but how do you make the proper exceptions without alienating your base and making yourself vulnerable to a take over?[/QUOTE] First it depends on what your base is. Hard core Nazi's certainly aren't going to be satisfied by anything. If your worried about effective control rather than fetisizing always over 100% purity, I think there are ways. Just requires some guts and principle. The way Chronicles and Lew Rockwell operate.
2004-05-17 18:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]If this is Taylor's strategy, it's a pretty damn stupid strategy.
Avoiding what you call "explicit anti-Semitism" hasn't gotten Taylor or AmRen a thing except 5 minutes on the tube every once in a while (a long while).
Yeah, you sound like Trisk. Do you also have an island in the Atlantic where the alternative is a booming success, or for that matter anywhere 1/100 of the publicity and accessibility Taylor has got?
Internet navel contemplation doesn't count.
Moreover, Taylor is already on the SPLC's 40 people to watch list, and AmRen is considered an hate group by the ADL -- which means we can pretty much assume that the FBI shares this opinion.
Ho-hum. Vdare is in the same category. Should Brimelow and Francis start writing like Linder then?
Hey Polinco and OD are too small to even merit mention. Is that what you call success? And even SF and VNN are basically paper organizations, whose ineffectiveness I'm sure brings quiet satisfaction to Dees and Foxman.
So, if embracing Jews is indeed part of some kind of strategy to increase the broad appel of his organization, what in your opinion has it gotten him?[/QUOTE]Yeah, go back to your own island in the Atlantic then and tell us what a brave new world alternative you have planned.
2004-05-17 19:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]I'm not sure what Taylor's personal stance is, but AmRen itself is not opposed to nonwhite immigration per se. They are against immigrants from Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa because they "have low IQ and high crime rates," but they welcome with open arms "high IQ" Korean, Chinese, and Jewish immigrants. AmRen's form of "racism" is one which the neoconservatives can happily live with. After all, didn't the Wall Street Journal run some favorable reviews of The Bell Curve.
Read the article.> But first of all, just what is our movement? What are we fighting for? I think the simplest way of putting it is that we just want to be left alone. We are the heirs to the magnificent culture and traditions of Europe, we are a biologically distinct group known as white people, we want to be left alone to carry forward our traditions and to pursue our own destiny. It is as simple as that. We wish other groups well, but we cannot welcome them in our midst because they are not us. We have a deep, healthy loyalty to our own kind, and we know populations are not replaceable or interchangeable. We have the right to be us, and only we can be us.
I don't think any jewish neoconservative as we know them would be happy with statememts like these, or Taylor support of groups like Haider's Freedom Party, which suffuse the article. Overall you know more about Am. Ren. than I do, but this article certainly represents a perfect representation of our philosophy, not only mine but I'd think almost all on this forum.
That represents the essence of the AmRen worldview, which is not consistent with white nationalism or even old-school paleoconservatism. There are some WN's in AmRen who like it because of its anti-negro and anti-mestizo message, but I would hope that they understand that even apart from the Jewish question the whole AmRen approach is fatally flawed.
In other words, its the worldview of neoconservatives Herrnstein and Murray, authors of The Bell Curve,(who's inherent contradictions MacDonald discusses in Culture of Critique) and nothing more. Again, it certainly doesn't sound like this article. Publicaly I suspect Taylor may make Bell Curve noises more, but I don't think from reading here that's the end of the matter.
In contrast, Taylor courts Jews who serve specifically Jewish aims and Jewish interests. If you don't believe me, take a look at the AmRen mailing list in Yahoo groups. It's filled with a number of rabid Zionists and Jewish supremacists who think that they can use Taylor's pseudo-"white nationalism" against their Arab and Negro enemies. By allowing self-identified Jewish supremacists into AmRen, Taylor is basically repeating the mistake that the Old Right made by welcoming the neocons. We've already seen neoconservatism destroy the American Right. Let's not have a "neo white nationalism" added to the mix.
It's one thing to run some essays written by Jews or to have some Jewish individuals as members sitting quietly in the back row seats. It's another thing entirely to allow them to dictate the direction that the movement is going to take.[/QUOTE]A mailing list per se doesn't define a movement. Would we define OD by the nature of the IP's of the "hits" we receive?
Not that I don't share your concerns about the potential mischief. But I think there might be more than one interpretation of the actual harm now being done by such.
2004-05-18 22:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Yeah, you sound like Trisk.
Given that Trisk is proven liar and fraud, I'd say that's a fairly cheap shot.
Do you also have an island in the Atlantic where the alternative is a booming success,
Just because Trisk was wrong about some things doesn't mean he was wrong about everything.
or for that matter anywhere 1/100 of the publicity and accessibility Taylor has got?
What publicity?
Taylor has written one noteworthy book, Paved with Good Intentions, which few people outside of racialist circles have ever heard of, and he gets on TV for 5 to 10 minutes a few times a year, if that, where he is invariably portrayed as a lunatic.
Is that your idea of constructive publicity?
Internet navel contemplation doesn't count.
Never said it did.
And by the way, when's the last time you produced something other than "Internet navel"?
I seem to have missed your last book.
Vdare is in the same category. Should Brimelow and Francis start writing like Linder then?
There is middle ground waiting to be plowed between writing like Linder and not naming the Jew at all.
Joe Sobran has been plowing that ground for years, and so has Kevin MacDonald
Even VDARE has begun to approach the Jewish question in recent months -- which means Peter Brimelow is moving in Alex Linder's direction, not Jared Taylor's (or yours).
Hey Polinco and OD are too small to even merit mention. Is that what you call success?
Well, it's not as if Amren is doing much better. They may have more readers than Chronicles, but that's not saying much.
The fact is, you, me, or anyone else on this board could probably get on the SPLC's 40 people to watch list if we started an above ground organization, created a professional web site, and began running commentary by AY, PaleoconAvatar, Il Ragno, and wintermute. Getting on the bad side of the Jew is not that difficult. In fact, we'd probably get on the "watch list" even faster than Taylor, because OD's finest writers, unlike Taylor, understand the importance of naming the Jew.
And even SF and VNN are basically paper organizations, whose ineffectiveness I'm sure brings quiet satisfaction to Dees and Foxman.
Actually, I've seen Don Black on TV a few times over the years. HBO did an especially memorable smear job on the man a few years back. And SF has many more members than Amren or CofCC. Many more.
Moroever, it's not like Jared Taylor has done things that are so compelling and impressive that he just towers over Don Black. Don Black has spent 25 years fighting for White rights in the trenches, if not on television.
That said, given the importance you ascribe to Taylor's "real world" accomplishments, I think it's fair to ask the question what has Jared Taylor actually accomplished in the real world that you find so impressive?
He has a web site featuring quality articles. Big deal. So do Don Black, Alex Linder, and Texas Dissident.
He gets on TV infrequently. So what? Taylor doesn't mention the Jew, so the Jews throw him some scraps from time to time. Basically, the Jews put him on TV occasionally in highly a controlled setting, so they can portray Taylor and his supporters as lunatics.
He wrote a book that no one has ever heard of but racialists. Big deal. His book isn't any more well known among the general public than Duke's book -- and Duke's book names the Jew.
He has an "above ground" organization. Well, at least he's doing something, but what's the big deal really? Any one of us could start an above ground organization and do everything that Amren is doing right now -- which is publish decent articles and rent a hotel once a year and convene a conference.
The establishment takes Taylor more seriously because he doesn't name the Jew. Whoops -- that's not true now is it? I forgot the SPLC has him on the 40 people to watch list, right next to Alex Linder.
The FBI isn't likely to target AmRen. Whoops -- that one's not true either, now is it? It can't be, because the ADL considers Taylor's organization a "hate group," even though Taylor has loudly disavowed so called explicit "anti-Semitism" (whatever that is).
So, in light of these accomplishments -- let me pose the question again: what exactly do you think Taylor is accomplishing by not naming the Jew?
Needless to say, none of this is meant to lessen Taylor's accomplishments. He seems to genuinely care about White people and has obviously done some fine work. But I think it's an open question whether his decision to not name the Jew has ever gotten him anything significant.
2004-05-18 23:24 | User Profile
There is only one proper school of thought re: White nationalism:
NO JEWS!
How much more simple can that idea be?
2004-05-18 23:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]There is only one proper school of thought re: White nationalism:
NO JEWS!
How much more simple can that idea be?
--------[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
And by that standard, Taylor doesn't fit the bill.
2004-05-18 23:31 | User Profile
Look --
If I own, for example, a website that is nationalistic, why would I allow a non-White [i.e. a Jew] to write for my website? Or be connected to it in any way?
The worst thing that can happen to the overall White movement is Jews becoming involved with it.
2004-05-18 23:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Look --
If I own, for example, a website that is nationalistic, why would I allow a non-White [i.e. a Jew] to write for my website? Or be connected to it in any way?
The worst thing that can happen to the overall White movement is Jews becoming involved with it.
-------------[/QUOTE]
Well, some would argue that there are benefits to putting Jews on the masthead, namely, "respectability" and "legitimacy" in the eyes of the pundit class and the controlled media.
Taylor, of course, has neither of those things (respectability or legitimacy), yet he continues to feature Jews on a regular basis. It's interesting. Basically, he has invited Jews into his organization in return for -- nothing.
To me, that strongly suggests that Taylor must have another motive for inviting Jews into AmRem, and when considering what those motives might be, I don't think we should rule out the possibility that his goal is sabotaging the White Nationalist movement in its infancy. Buckely did it. Why not Taylor?
Not that this necessarily means anything, but Taylor did go to Yale (like Buckley). Thus, it wouldn't surprise me if social class issues were a factor here. Maybe Taylor associates "anti-Semitism" with "white trash."
Either way, it doesn't matter. We don't have to speculate about Taylor's motives when his actions can be scrutinized in the clear light of day.
2004-05-19 00:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Well, some would argue that there are benefits to putting Jews on the masthead, namely, "respectability" and "legitimacy" in the eyes of the pundit class and the controlled media.
Taylor, of course, has neither of those things (respectability or legitimacy), yet he continues to feature Jews on a regular basis. It's interesting. Basically, he has invited Jews into his organization in return for -- nothing.
Well he has a certain amount of respectability if he gets invited on TV as a guest. They don't invite anybody there, especially people with reputations as demagogues. As an example of where he was invited, I saw him on the Chris Mathews show defending racial profiling.
To me, that strongly suggests that Taylor must have another motive for inviting Jews into AmRem, and when considering what those motives might be, I don't think we should rule out the possibility that his goal is sabotaging the White Nationalist movement in its infancy. Buckely did it. Why not Taylor?
Not that this necessarily means anything, but Taylor did go to Yale (like Buckley). Thus, it wouldn't surprise me if social class issues were a factor here. Maybe Taylor associates "anti-Semitism" with "white trash."
I think you've basically hit the nail on the head. Taylor is going after a certain amount of elite respectability. or at least lack of complete censure, and for this purpose he's put together a "Bell Curve" coalition at Am. Ren. if what you're saying about jewish prominence is true, mimicking the jewish/gentile coalition of neoconservatives, Herrnstein and Murray, who wrote the Bell Curve.
If that is the basic purpose of Am. Ren., then I still wouldn't dismiss it as a useless organization. I think it does useful things, like articulately defending racial profiling (when the media are looking for someone who will take the heat for a position they all personally understand perfectly well but are petrified to openly state).
It sounds though that Am. Ren., as such, would be more of a "heriditary elitist" organization, than a nationalist one. Which would definitely make it more acceptable to the media, like the WSJ types.
This isn't to say Taylor is a patsy for the neocons. As I seem to recall he wrote a very articulate article attacking our mideast policy and our general Israeli alignment in AR a few months back.
Either way, it doesn't matter. We don't have to speculate about Taylor's motives when his actions can be scrutinized in the clear light of day.[/QUOTE] Well this essay is very good. Why don't you scrutinize that. I can't find anything wrong with what it says, and I doubt you can either. Taylor may not dot all the "i's" or cross all the "t's" but I think he does some good things, if you acknowledge his limitations.
2004-05-19 00:21 | User Profile
As I see it, the real question here is not how others may or may not have built their particular group or organization vs. how we would do it ourselves, but rather is there any sense whatsoever in condemning and shunning other groups/organizations that have had some success and might have something to offer in some way or another.
In and of itself, 'naming the Jew' coupled with two dollars will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks and that's about it. If that's the beezneez of one's ideology then sooner or later their going to be talking to the walls in a room by themselves. Padded walls at that. Further, if one so firmly insists on the sole criteria of 'naming the Jew' that it causes one to denounce and shun any other halfway sympathetic individual, group or organization then it displays a very shallow, immature and naive conception of coalition building and organizational politics. Thus the question then becomes what is one's particular goal. Is it to be a poet or preacher crying alone in the wilderness dressed in a hairshirt? Or is it to actually build a movement that has practical aims and the practical means to achieve them?
Now having said that and if we're throwing out hypotheticals here, then I would say that if I were running an organization and/or building some kind of nationalist group, then I would make sure it was not tainted with any kind of jewish influence. But at the same time, I think it would be shortsighted not to take reality as it is, recognize that others have accomplished similar, worthy gains with different means than my own and then just flat-out refuse any kind of working-together or coalition based on that one difference. Caution would be in order, sure, but the time is just way too late to solely focus on differences instead of similarities. In my opinion that is just cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Like VF wrote, I too believe there is a middle way between what AmRen is doing and rabid, simplistic anti-jew website ranting. Take what you can from the former and make every effort to distance yourself from the latter, because it's fundamental nature is isolating in it's real-world effect. Doctrinal purity is for religious pursuits. Whether we like it or not, politics is a base art where compromise and biting one's tongue are usually the more effective actions. To do that consistently, yet not lose sight of the overall goal is the truly difficult work of responsible leaders and men who are firmly grounded in the real world and want to achieve real goals.
2004-05-19 00:39 | User Profile
Okie and Tex,
You make some good points. Obviously it's imperative that we work together and do what we can to stay as visible as possible.
And if it were any other issue besides making accomodations with Jews, my opinion as a WN would be let's forget about it -- no one person or organization will ever agree with me or any other WN 100%, so the rational thing to do is put aside differences and work together.
But that's not what Taylor is doing. We're not talking about a difference of opinion along the lines of "should the border be closed," or should the border be closed and illegal immigrants repatriated"?
Taylor is doing something all together different. He is making accomodations with Jews -- the very people who have been working day and night for decades, if not centuries, to stamp White civilization and Christianity from the face of the Earth. From a pure tactical standpoint, it's insane. Maybe even suicidal. And most importantly, just to repeat my argument, objectively speaking Taylor hasn't really gotten much in return for his efforts if his goal is respect from the elite estabishment.
2004-05-19 00:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Like VF wrote, I too believe there is a middle way between what AmRen is doing and rabid, simplistic anti-jew website ranting. [/QUOTE]
Exactly. And we have two great teachers to learn from: Joe Sobran and Kevin MacDonald.
2004-05-19 00:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]As I see it, the real question here is not how others may or may not have built their particular group or organization vs. how we would do it ourselves, but rather is there any sense whatsoever in condemning and shunning other groups/organizations that have had some success and might have something to offer in some way or another.
In and of itself, 'naming the Jew' coupled with two dollars will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks and that's about it. If that's the beezneez of one's ideology then sooner or later their going to be talking to the walls in a room by themselves. Padded walls at that. Further, if one so firmly insists on the sole criteria of 'naming the Jew' that it causes one to denounce and shun any other halfway sympathetic individual, group or organization then it displays a very shallow, immature and naive conception of coalition building and organizational politics.
Or the totalitarian's contempt for them.
Whether we like it or not, politics is a base art where compromise and biting one's tongue are usually the more effective actions. To do that consistently, yet not lose sight of the overall goal is the truly difficult work of responsible leaders and men who are firmly grounded in the real world and want to achieve real goals.[/QUOTE] That is, in a democratic context.
Democracy has a few certain disagreeable features. Among them is that openly disparaging and berating any groups, especially politically powerful and influential groups, is a dead end.
Now if someone has decided democracy is a dead end, and has gone underground, eschewing dialogue for "direct action" I may not agree with him, but I can at least respect his sincerity. Democratic discussion boards like this though, whether you realized it or not, have a certain inescapable democratic air to them. We're he're to discuss, not to fight. (At least not right away). People who attack anyone who doesn't agree with them 100% of the time on these boards have a certain "cyber bravado" about them, as we berate people like Taylor for his lack of directness, a man who is robably far more forthright in real life than any of us.
2004-05-19 00:51 | User Profile
VF: Not that this necessarily means anything, but Taylor did go to Yale (like Buckley). Thus, it wouldn't surprise me if social class issues were a factor here. Maybe Taylor associates "anti-Semitism" with "white trash."
Okiereddust: I think you've basically hit the nail on the head. Taylor is going after a certain amount of elite respectability.
If this is true, then there really are only two possibilities.
Taylor is either incredibly stupid, which doesn't seem likely given his writings, or he is a traitor.
Apart from the Jews, no other group hates Christian Middle American more than the gentile "elite" typified by the likes of Yale grad Willam F. Buckley, Jr. from Connecticut.
Maybe Taylor should try working with the ADL next -- he may have a better chance of winning them over than the East Coast elite.
2004-05-19 01:00 | User Profile
[quote=Valley Forge]VF: Not that this necessarily means anything, but Taylor did go to Yale (like Buckley). Thus, it wouldn't surprise me if social class issues were a factor here. Maybe Taylor associates "anti-Semitism" with "white trash."
Okiereddust: I think you've basically hit the nail on the head. Taylor is going after a certain amount of elite respectability.[QUOTE=Valley Forge]If this is true, then there are only two possibilities.
Taylor is incredibly stupid, which doesn't seem likely given his writings, or he is a traitor.
Well respectability isn't the right word. Maybe tolerability is more close to it.
It really is no different, except in degree, than what the NA tries to achieve by demonstrating in suits and ties rather than Nazi regalia.
Taylor is never going to be mainstream acceptable. But like all of us to some exttent, he chooses to mute the rough points of his message to some extent. On is by not choosing to segregate AR.
And by the way, there is real "white trash" out there. Its not just a figment of the Yalies imagination.
Apart from the Jews, no other group hates Christian Middle American more than the gentile "elite" typified by the likes of Yale grad Willam F. Buckley, Jr. from Connecticut.
Maybe Taylor should try working with the ADL next -- he may have a better chance of winning them over than the East Coast elite.[/QUOTE] Now really NR has written some very favorable reviews of the bell curve.
2004-05-19 01:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Well respectability isn't the right word. Maybe tolerability is more close to it.
It really is no different, except in degree, than what the NA tries to achieve by demonstrating in suits and ties rather than Nazi regalia.
Taylor is never going to be mainstream acceptable. But like all of us to some exttent, he chooses to mute the rough points of his message to some extent. On is by not choosing to segregate AR.
And by the way, there is real "white trash" out there. Its not just a figment of the Yalies imagination.
Now really NR has written some very favorable reviews of the bell curve.[/QUOTE]
Sure, they did -- 10 years ago. The question is, what is NR doing today?
2004-05-19 01:53 | User Profile
Taylor brings together people through his conferences, and also puts out a good monthly newsletter that could grow with time. He has some connections in publishing, and that could be helpful.
Taylor doesn't talk about Jews much. Perhaps this was just a miscalculation, a hope for more respectability than proved possible?
2004-05-19 02:44 | User Profile
In and of itself, 'naming the Jew' coupled with two dollars will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks and that's about it.
The truth of the matter is that if enough White people, especially key White people [top writers, authors, etc.] began 'naming the Jew,' the Jews would be in trouble. Don't forget that this country is still about 79% White.
Naming the Jew works, and works well, if enough people do it. But a few people whispering about God's Lapdogs doesn't help much.
2004-05-19 02:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]I attribute this not to some sinister plot to subvert white nationalism on his part. Rather, it goes back to what I mentioned earlier - Taylor and AmRen in general are motivated by "IQ elitism" rather than by racialism or nationalism. Taylor may have some racialist sympathies personally (or use some weak racialist rhetoric to court those that do), but most of AmRen material focuses on low negro IQ and high criminality. By these "Bell Curve" standards, there is no reason to exclude Eastasians or Jews, indeed they should by right be welcomed with open arms. [/QUOTE]I really don't know how Taylor could be a strident semito-skeptic very easily. After all, isn't Yale like Harvard, almost majority jewish? He's practically the token goy from the ghetto. I'm sure you develop an unconscious adversion to wearing your opinions on your sleeve from such a background.
2004-05-19 15:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]As to the whole issue of Taylor's approach, I agree that moderation and "respectability" are indeed worthy goals. If Jared Taylor were simply to ignore the whole Jewish question altogether, or to tone it down in the way that his friend Sam Francis does that would be one thing. Taylor goes further than this - his approach amounts to outright philosemitism, in which Jews and their agenda are given center stage.
I attribute this not to some sinister plot to subvert white nationalism on his part. Rather, it goes back to what I mentioned earlier - Taylor and AmRen in general are motivated by "IQ elitism" rather than by racialism or nationalism. Taylor may have some racialist sympathies personally (or use some weak racialist rhetoric to court those that do), but most of AmRen material focuses on low negro IQ and high criminality. By these "Bell Curve" standards, there is no reason to exclude Eastasians or Jews, indeed they should by right be welcomed with open arms.[/QUOTE] Amen, amen, amen. Bravo Anti-Yuppie. "IQ elitism" (or classism, it's direct predecessor) is a dangerous red herring and of no relevance to the preservation European cultural and racial heritage.
2004-05-19 19:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I attribute this not to some sinister plot to subvert white nationalism on his part. Rather, it goes back to what I mentioned earlier - Taylor and AmRen in general are motivated by "IQ elitism" rather than by racialism or nationalism. Taylor may have some racialist sympathies personally (or use some weak racialist rhetoric to court those that do), but most of AmRen material focuses on low negro IQ and high criminality. By these "Bell Curve" standards, there is no reason to exclude Eastasians or Jews, indeed they should by right be welcomed with open arms.[/QUOTE]
I think that Sir Arthur Keith would hold that this IQ elitism is a classic example of "race forming behaviour."
I'd be careful with this. There is certainly a tendency for the scoin of the smart to meet and marry in top schools, as discussed in The Bell Curve itself.
The cognitive elites already see themselves as a race apart, although they don't admit it. But surely their sneering contempt for us "trailer trash" is an attempt to demarcate their own genetic boundaries that includes highly intelligent white gentiles, and significant number of Asians, and vastly disproportionate numbers of Jews.
You know, as an aside, I think that Stanley Kubrick was getting at this in Dr. Strangelove. The vision after the nuclear holocaust was all the smartest men to go underground with ten of the healthiest and most attractive females each. While there'd be a lot of Jack Rippers and Bucky Turgidsons, the Jews would be greatly overrepresented on a percentage basis among the smart males (just as Jews would be greatly UNDERREPRESENTED among the attractive females).
I think that Ygg would agree with that analysis - he mentioned the Jewish "Aryanizing" bandwagon someplace.
Anyway, I'm sceptical of this IQ elitism stuff. My loyalty is to my white, European and Christain American nation, and not to some effete subset of the same that smells suspiciously of bortsch and sour cream.
Walter
2004-05-19 19:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Hey, we're a internet cyber organization. All we deal with is printed text. Whenever a printed word is posted, it has some authority. You equated the reading, quoting, publishing, or republishing of certain Jewish authors with "letting them in" and that simply is not true. Unless the Jewish author is actually on staff or a member of your organization, he's hardly been "let in". Please demonstrate where I am wrong here.
I read lots of leftists who I agree with in their opposition to the war in Iraq, for instance, but I hardly agree with the rest of their politics and I wouldn't let them join an organization I controlled, unless it was strictly an anti-war organization (ie, single issue).
Giving them veto power? I think Jerod has hardly gone this far. Remember, Am. Ren. is a small movement.
When Jews can veto discussion of the Jewish question on the Am. Ren. forums/lists (and I've never bothered to participate in these, so I am assuming this is an accurate description of what is going on there) then, yes, they have been given veto power over discussion of issues that concern Jews.
Maybe you could show me these threads again where this kind of thing was discussed.
It's discussed all over the place; maybe you should ask the people making the charge. It's hardly the first, or the tenth, time I have heard it, and I have yet to see anyone refute or deny it.
Besides, Am. Ren., Buchanan, etc. don't have to define our movement, just because we occasionally say a few good things about it. Like Trisk et. al. always seemed to think. Oh, I agree. My point was that we should not copy their tactics or follow the deadend path they are travelling down.
First it depends on what your base is. Hard core Nazi's certainly aren't going to be satisfied by anything. If your worried about effective control rather than fetisizing always over 100% purity, I think there are ways. Just requires some guts and principle. The way Chronicles and Lew Rockwell operate.[/QUOTE] Hard core Nazis hardly constitute even a small minority of the anti-Jewish position anymore, or haven't you noticed? As to Chronicles and Lew Rockwell, they are worse than useless. Guts? Principles? Oh, my aching sides.
We aren't talking about "fetishizing over 100% purity" here...would you accuse Yggdrasil of such a "crime"? Hardly.
But "effective control" is something you lose once you start having to worry what Jews think, which is what happens when you let them in and have to start worrying about whether they will continue to contribute time and money, or whether they are going to spy on you and go crying about "antisemitism" to the media if they don't get their way.
It happened when Buckley let the neo-cons in to the "conservative movement". Gradually they took over and started dictacting what could and could not be discussed. Compare National Review today to what it was back in the 50's and 60's...or even the 80's.
It happened when Randian libertarians started defining what could and could not be discussed and defended amongst the proto-libertarian right, moving them off in the direction of modern libertarianism and away from traditional small government, pro-white conservativism.
It happens now with Am. Ren. and what they will not allow to be discussed in their own forums.
Notice a pattern here?
The only groups not to be taken over by Jews are groups either of completely no use at all to Jews, or those whose token "Jews" were hardly Jews at all. If they don't behave like Jews then they are probably pretty safe to let in, but then, technically they aren't really Jews, either. That is, they don't act like part of the Jewish tribe. Or if they are still part of the tribe, they keep it well hidden.
2004-05-19 19:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]When the mass media hails neoconservatism as "intelligent conservative" and "the thinking man's right wing," what it really means is that it represents the economic and cultural interests of this "IQ Elite." The gentiles in its ranks, your Buckleys, Wills, and probably the Jared Taylors, feel a closer sense of solidarity with the Jewish cognitive elites of Wall Street and academia than they do with middle or working-class fellow whites. I have often encountered this mentality among "right wing" Ivy League types, who by "we" mean not white people, but rather the whites, Jews, and Asians in their profession and social class. One of them posted on the Sam Francis board some years back, proudly stating that he shares more with a Chinese computer programmer than a white farmer. I remember once encountering an English fellow on Usenet back in the day who said he felt more akin to elite immigrants in Britain than to English working class people because the immigrants "knew more about Shakespeare and cricket, and thus were more 'English' than the English working class"!!! I kid you not.
With this in mind, I've always found the close association of Taylor with the CofCC and Sam Francis to be rather strange. The CofCC is a populist organization with largely middle and working-class white constituency, and Sam Francis's "MARs" represent a revolt by the Middle Class against both the urban deracinated white/Jewish elite and their largely colored underclass clients. How Taylor and Rushton fit into this equation with AmRen's "IQ elitism" is a mystery to me.
Taylor may be of mixed mind on the issue. Plenty of the "elite" remember their more humble roots.
One theory I have is one which applies to Charles Murray as well as Taylor. Both may have racialist leanings and sympathies, but they came to realize that the only way to be "respectable" and visible was to champion a superficially similar but very different ideology: elitist eugenics. In eugenics, some "racist" mutterings are permitted against blacks as a means of venting one's frustrations, but the underlying ideology is a blind alley with respect to any form of racial nationalism.
Yggdrasil often writes about the need to bring around elite whites - the outer party - sooner or later. We don't stand much chance without them, barring a complete societal breakdown which doesn't look like it is going to happen any time soon.
Outer party white elites will have a jarring "road to Damascus" experience when they realize that the Jews, asians, etc consider them to be as contemptable, and no different than, the "white trash" they look down on.
What is more, the AmRen forum happily indulges Jews who post the most vile and bigoted things about the Irish, Eastern Europeans, Catholics, and working-class whites, while censoring even the most mild remarks about the Jewish role in funding the NAACP and opening our borders to colored people. In other words, the ethnic and religious hatreds of Jews are protected and encouraged, while opinions that don't suit Jewish interests and tastes are forbidden. Taylor doesn't manage the AmRen message board, but it isn't a far stretch of the imagination to believe that the group moderator's policy reflects the views of Taylor and AmRen in general.[/QUOTE]Or that Taylor lacks the guts to either step in and stop it, or to shut the forum down entirely. If he isn't willing to discuss the Jewish question, he would be safer just shutting the forum down entirely rather than letting it function as a de facto arm of the Jewish subversion of his efforts.
2004-05-19 21:58 | User Profile
Unless his goal is to work with the Jew.
Let's not forget that possibility.
2004-05-19 22:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]You equated the reading, quoting, publishing, or republishing of certain Jewish authors with "letting them in" and that simply is not true. Unless the Jewish author is actually on staff or a member of your organization, he's hardly been "let in". Please demonstrate where I am wrong here.
I read lots of leftists who I agree with in their opposition to the war in Iraq, for instance, but I hardly agree with the rest of their politics and I wouldn't let them join an organization I controlled, unless it was strictly an anti-war organization (ie, single issue). When Jews can veto discussion of the Jewish question on the Am. Ren. forums/lists (and I've never bothered to participate in these, so I am assuming this is an accurate description of what is going on there) then, yes, they have been given veto power over discussion of issues that concern Jews. It's discussed all over the place; maybe you should ask the people making the charge. It's hardly the first, or the tenth, time I have heard it, and I have yet to see anyone refute or deny it. Oh, I agree. My point was that we should not copy their tactics or follow the deadend path they are travelling down.
Hard core Nazis hardly constitute even a small minority of the anti-Jewish position anymore, or haven't you noticed? As to Chronicles and Lew Rockwell, they are worse than useless. Guts? Principles? Oh, my aching sides.
We aren't talking about "fetishizing over 100% purity" here...would you accuse Yggdrasil of such a "crime"? Hardly.
But "effective control" is something you lose once you start having to worry what Jews think, which is what happens when you let them in and have to start worrying about whether they will continue to contribute time and money, or whether they are going to spy on you and go crying about "antisemitism" to the media if they don't get their way.
It happened when Buckley let the neo-cons in to the "conservative movement". Gradually they took over and started dictacting what could and could not be discussed. Compare National Review today to what it was back in the 50's and 60's...or even the 80's.
It happened when Randian libertarians started defining what could and could not be discussed and defended amongst the proto-libertarian right, moving them off in the direction of modern libertarianism and away from traditional small government, pro-white conservativism.
It happens now with Am. Ren. and what they will not allow to be discussed in their own forums.
Notice a pattern here?
The only groups not to be taken over by Jews are groups either of completely no use at all to Jews, or those whose token "Jews" were hardly Jews at all. If they don't behave like Jews then they are probably pretty safe to let in, but then, technically they aren't really Jews, either. That is, they don't act like part of the Jewish tribe. Or if they are still part of the tribe, they keep it well hidden.[/QUOTE]
Well reasoned. I'd like to see you post more often.
2004-05-19 22:52 | User Profile
Yggdrasil often writes about the need to bring around elite whites - the outer party - sooner or later. We don't stand much chance without them, barring a complete societal breakdown which doesn't look like it is going to happen any time soon.
In my opinion we should write off the current crop of white elites and focus our energies on converting Whites who are in graduate, business, or law school today. Assuming society doesn't fall apart completely, this generation should be rising to power in the next 10 to 20 years. And with another 20 years of racial preferences and Hispanic immigration, a lot of White people may be ready to come over to our side if we lay the groundwork now through determined outreach and activism. In doing this, we need to take social class into account on focus on people who are bright, but that do not come from wealthy backgrounds.
I don't know what Ygg's idea of an "elite" is, that is, if he means elite in terms of wealth, intelligence, or both, but in my opinion we should ignore Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, Andover, Phillips Exeter Academy and the other factories that feed Wall Street, Left Wing academia, the media establishment, and the high level positions in ZOG's bureacracies. Those assh*les will never join us. Never. And not only are they unlikely to join us, people in that social class are often every bit the enemy Jews are. Taylor and Buckley are great examples. But it doesn't stop there. In the scheme of things, Taylor and Buckley are both pretty maginal figures. We overlook it sometimes, but let's not forget that every Jewish victory against our people would never have happened if it weren't for the Gentile "elite." It was FDR, for example, from the New York's Hudson valley, that took us into WW2 to oppose Hitler.
Nobody on our side -- the Nationalist side --as far as I know went to an "elite" school. Sobran went to Michigan State. Francis went to UNC. Buchanan went to Georgetown. He did go to Columbia for grad school, but he did so on scholarship I think, and after he graduated he went to work for a paper in the midwest, not the NYT. David Duke went to LSU. I think Fleming went to Illinois, but I could be wrong. William Pierce did not go to an Ivy league school. Francis Parker Yockey went to Notre Dame. Gore Vidal didn't even go to college (not that he's a racial nationist, but as an old school leftist he's with us on many issues, and in the 1980s he did write that Whites should work together to turn back the Yellow threat). And if you go back even further, I bet a lot of the leading intellectuals of the Old Right weren't Yalies. After all, most of the people who opposed America's entry into WW1 and WW2 came from the heartland, not the east coast.
So there are plenty of people with fine minds coming out of places other than the Ivy league. We just have to work to win them over.
2004-05-20 04:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]I have often encountered this mentality among "right wing" Ivy League types, who by "we" mean not white people, but rather the whites, Jews, and Asians in their profession and social class. One of them posted on the Sam Francis board some years back, proudly stating that he shares more with a Chinese computer programmer than a white farmer.
You don't mean our old "Hindu supremacist" friend, do you?
One theory I have is one which applies to Charles Murray as well as Taylor. Both may have racialist leanings and sympathies, but they came to realize that the only way to be "respectable" and visible was to champion a superficially similar but very different ideology: elitist eugenics. In eugenics, some "racist" mutterings are permitted against blacks as a means of venting one's frustrations, but the underlying ideology is a blind alley with respect to any form of racial nationalism.
Oh sure. From the days of Karl Marx's sneerings leftist cognitive elitism has always been quite acceptable.
Of course for Murray, it wasn't just the theory in general but the fact he got Richard Herrnstein in as coauthor.
What is more, the AmRen forum happily indulges Jews who post the most vile and bigoted things about the Irish, Eastern Europeans, Catholics, and working-class whites, while censoring even the most mild remarks about the Jewish role in funding the NAACP and opening our borders to colored people. In other words, the ethnic and religious hatreds of Jews are protected and encouraged, while opinions that don't suit Jewish interests and tastes are forbidden. Taylor doesn't manage the AmRen message board, but it isn't a far stretch of the imagination to believe that the group moderator's policy reflects the views of Taylor and AmRen in general.[/QUOTE]Will they said the same thing about Francis.
BTW, I know we've discussed this in the past, but do you have a link to that Am. Ren. forum?
Anyway, since Taylor is publically associated with it, it doesn't surprise me that he'd lean this way. As the Bell Curve shows, you can say practically anything and dice everything today, just as long as they don't call you "anti-semitic".
2004-05-20 04:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]In my opinion we should write off the current crop of white elites and focus our energies on converting Whites who are in graduate, business, or law school today. Assuming society doesn't fall apart completely, this generation should be rising to power in the next 10 to 20 years. And with another 20 years of racial preferences and Hispanic immigration, a lot of White people may be ready to come over to our side if we lay the groundwork now through determined outreach and activism. In doing this, we need to take social class into account on focus on people who are bright, but that do not come from wealthy backgrounds.
I don't know what Ygg's idea of an "elite" is, that is, if he means elite in terms of wealth, intelligence, or both, but in my opinion we should ignore Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, Andover, Phillips Exeter Academy and the other factories that feed Wall Street, Left Wing academia, the media establishment, and the high level positions in ZOG's bureacracies. Those assh*les will never join us. Never. And not only are they unlikely to join us, people in that social class are often every bit the enemy Jews are.
Firstly WN is basically a populist thing. Naturally the elites are opposed to it. And this is why the Frankfurt Schools Studies in Prejudice series focuses so much on populism.
Nobody on our side -- the Nationalist side --as far as I know went to an "elite" school. Sobran went to Michigan State. Francis went to UNC. Buchanan went to Georgetown. He did go to Columbia for grad school, but he did so on scholarship I think, and after he graduated he went to work for a paper in the midwest, not the NYT. David Duke went to LSU. I think Fleming went to Illinois, but I could be wrong. William Pierce did not go to an Ivy league school. Francis Parker Yockey went to Notre Dame. Gore Vidal didn't even go to college (not that he's a racial nationist, but as an old school leftist he's with us on many issues, and in the 1980s he did write that Whites should work together to turn back the Yellow threat).
Gore Vidal certainly is elite, wherever he went to college. And Sobran wrote for National Review, (as did Brimelow) Buchanan was Nixon's chief speech writer, etc.
That said, I think this shows one thing about "elites". There are differences among them, just like everyone else, fissures, rivalries etc. That's where people like those you mentioned come from.
If as, MacDonald says, "the individualism of the elites" dooms many societies, it also often dooms the elites themselves. That's always where our opportunities are. And let's face it, people like Brimelow and Francis have resources and training and can do far more than we could ever dream of. That's why I think a good nationalist movement finds them essential, and a philosophy that scorns them, such as NSer George Rockwell's lowbrow orientation, basically dooms itself to oblivion.
2004-05-20 12:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE]So there are plenty of people with fine minds coming out of places other than the Ivy league. We just have to work to win them over.[/QUOTE]
Very well put, VF.
I forget where I read a quote from I think a college admissions officer at one of the Ivy League schools to the effect that they mostly get the brightest and most studious kids from upper and upper-middle class families, but that the really "scary-smart" kids are very often middle and lower-middle class kids who go to state universities out there in fly-over country.
I think that the statistics bear that out, too. We know that there are a lot of us white folks out there, and we know that X percentage have IQ's so high you get a nose bleed just thinking about it, and we also know that they don't get into the pipeline for elite schools or simply don't show up in the system at all. But they're out there somewhere. I suspect that most are lurking in the junior colleges and local States, and the rest are just out there working crappy jobs, running their own businesses, or doing Heaven-knows-what.
You know, Hollywood senses that there's a danger there. The "cracker genius" seems to be a recurring theme of late. Consider the very interesting supporting character in Adaptations (that actor won an Oscar for that role, too, if I remember correctly).
Anyhoo, I agree that we need to concentrate on flyover country. And then not even the Big 10, but in the satellite state systems where the campuses are white and the economic pain of globalization is felt most keenly.
Walter
2004-05-20 12:31 | User Profile
[URL=http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0001/articles/satinover.html]Here's [/URL] an interesting take on the future of the cognitive elites from Jeffrey Satinover (who is a Tribesman).
Jeffrey Satinover Millennia are really big eventsââ¬âlike when the odometer on your car rolls over from 9999.9. Well, the kid brought his car in for its 2,000 year check-up, so I did it. But I warned him, the news is really bad, so fixing it is really going to cost a lot.
Hereââ¬â¢s one problem. The redeemers have already arrived. The Thousand Year Reich may seem to have lasted a scant few years, but if you look carefully, youââ¬â¢ll see that after three days in the bunker, almost every one of its core ideas was resurrected to radiate future-ward over ever spreading territory. Mercy killing, abortion, infanticide, the whole conceptual structure of unlebenswertige life, once seen as repulsive, has within but one generation been transformed into the very portrait of beauty. Eugenics, insistent racialism, and nationally demarcated socialism are now the common heritage of all enlightened Westerners. Governor George W. Bush got it (inadvertently) right: itââ¬â¢s ridiculous to whine that weââ¬â¢re "slouching toward Gomorrah"ââ¬âweââ¬â¢re in a dead sprint, chest at the tape, proud of our imminent triumph.
Thatââ¬â¢s one problem. Another is this: Fairness. The hereditary aristocracies have vanished, but a new cognitive elite has just begun its ascent to dominance, and everyone is invited to joinââ¬âif they are smart enough to know how. At our best universities, the largest proportion allow their brains to be shaped by useless drivel: deconstructionism, alternate sexualities, loony methods for achieving "social justice." The American mind isnââ¬â¢t just being closed, itââ¬â¢s being evacuated.
[B]But there is another, much smaller, group on campus. It pursues quantitative studies. Year by year, the content grows ever more sophisticated and complex. Many years of training in sophisticated mathematics will allow a student to but scratch the surface of, say, early quantum mechanics. To really get its present state requires many years more. This group is naturally both elite and meritocratic.[/B] Math and physics students are now being recruited by Wall Street because even finance is becoming ever more quantitative. The right shoes and the right social network may still help at the beginning, but increasingly, itââ¬â¢s the right number on your Stanford-Binet, and the application of that number to the right stuff, that does the trick. Itââ¬â¢s not for nothing that the riches of Silicon Valley were created by nerds. Of all the major universities, MIT produces the largest proportion of entrepreneurs and has the reputation elsewhere in the world of being "the best."
[B]When the rising elite have consolidated their ability to manipulate emerging biomolecular and quantum computational technologies, they will form a club whose barriers to entry will be the most scrupulously fair in historyââ¬âand the most ruthlessly impenetrable to the unqualified. [/B] Having little need to preserve dominance by force or trickery, they may form, if they have a mind to, the most benign and self-centered ruling class imaginable. The arrogance of todayââ¬â¢s "caring" elites is a mere foretaste of the unasked-for helpfulness to come.
Perhaps we will even alter human nature itself, and turn ourselves into something utterly alien, a race for whom the old standardsââ¬âwisdom, humility, nobility, kindnessââ¬âwill be discarded like a serpentââ¬â¢s skin. Weââ¬â¢ll just become winners, until we meet an alien race better at it than we, but since at that point we will be genetically convinced that might alone makes right, it wonââ¬â¢t matter.
Yet another vehicular system that seems to be failing is religion. I suppose that God Himself is doing just fine, but His earthly defenders are on the ropesââ¬âand itââ¬â¢s our own fault. Religion deservedly comes in for more criticism in its failures than does science, because genuine religion claims for itself the ability to know whatââ¬â¢s true, whereas genuine science claims for itself only the ability to quantify the probability of a thing being wrong. (Bad science and bad religion simply swap roles, the former proclaiming Truth, the latter worshiping Doubt.) Religionââ¬â¢s bête noire is the fact that a genuine truth arrogantly assertedââ¬âthat is, without so much as a momentââ¬â¢s consideration that it might be falseââ¬âis a most pernicious kind of falsehood, far worse in its effects on the humane than a flat mistake.
Itââ¬â¢s a matter of modesty. It never uses the term, but science itself is a method to insure modesty of claims (however arrogant its practitioners). Religion, on the other hand, speaks constantly of the virtues, and then, on the whole, displays them with no greater consistency than does any other human institution.
[B]This defect interacts dangerously with a second one. The rising cognitive elite doesnââ¬â¢t care for religion. For them, fine-sounding phrases about "brotherly love" are a joke. In their world, itââ¬â¢s simple: if youââ¬â¢ve got the brains and can back them up with action, youââ¬â¢re a full-fledged member. It is among this elite that the highest proportion of truly multiracial progeny can already be found, and more than anything else, that expanding reality will be a far more convincing argument that theyââ¬â¢re right and the religionists wrong.[/B]
But the biggest problem is this: the world is changing far more dramatically than I think the boy can appreciate. Itââ¬â¢s a world where quantum teleportation, quantum computation, and quantum cryptography, for example, are not only being taken seriously, some have already been implemented at practical scales and are the object of intensive commercial research and development. Itââ¬â¢s not just a matter of some really cool technologies for us to gape at, but of a world where only those capable of mastering the wizardry behind the technologies will rise, and where our creations may well outstrip their creators.
How about, say, self-evolving brains composed of teleporting quantum computational elements processing information simultaneously in multiple universes? Science fiction? Nope. Between July 16 and 19, 1999 at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA and the Department of Defense held their first annual conference on evolvable hardware. A sample of the presentations: Evolving Circuits by Means of Natural
Selection
ââ¬Â¢ Embryologic Electronics
ââ¬Â¢ The Design and Use of Massively Parallel
Fine-Grained Self-Reconfigurable
Infinitely Scalable Architecture
ââ¬Â¢ Self-Repairing Evolvable Hardware
ââ¬Â¢ Genetically Engineered Nanoelectronics
ââ¬Â¢ Co-Evolutionary Robotics
ââ¬Â¢ Evolving Wire Antennas
Willy-nilly, we have embarked upon an adventure that leads to shores far more distant and alien than any we have ever set out for before. Attempts are being made, naturally, to link all this weirdness to philosophies and theologies of yore, to take the utterly mysterious and make it at least sound familiar. But I suspect that we are on the verge of something that weââ¬â¢re not going to be able to grasp quite so simply. Itââ¬â¢s possible that weââ¬â¢ve all been wrong in important ways all along. Even human immortality is not so remote a scientific possibility as was once thought.
Picture a world, then, in which, long before the dawning of the fourth millennium, mankind has created conscious, brilliant semiconductor simulacra made of endlessly self-repairing parts; it has itself eaten of the second tree in the Garden, that of Life, and thus acquired the immortality it has long soughtââ¬âor at least a select group has, whose members have likewise devised methods for the enhancement of their already concentrated pool of intelligence-associated genes. Where in such a world would there be a place for divine justice? Nowhere. (Unless, of course, there really is a Heaven, in which case the justice would be perfect.)
So, what were the damages for all this? You wonââ¬â¢t be surprised at the reaction I got: "Change myself? But itââ¬â¢s the car thatââ¬â¢s got the problem!" All I can say is, between now and the next checkup he better bring the thing in to an authorized service centerââ¬âand on a regular basis. And you know, I donââ¬â¢t get his dad. What lunatic gives a teenager with a long record of moving violations a souped-up Lamborghini, an instruction booklet, and a set of keys? Itââ¬â¢s no wonder that sometime around 2450 a group of traditionalists are going to take off for the new world found orbiting around Cygnus 351.
Jeffrey Satinover is the author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Cracking the Bible Code, and The Quantum Brain (Wiley, forthcoming). He has long been a psychiatrist in private practice in Connecticut and is currently a student in physics at Yale.
2004-05-20 17:12 | User Profile
Satinover suggests that somehow the mathematically inclined folk will take over. He sort of mixes genetic engineering into this 'cognitive elite.'
Have you ever me a group less capable of seizing power than advanced mathematicians and physicists?
And if we are going to be so able to increase intelligence with genetic engineering, wont this bust open entrance to 'the club' to the children of anyone with sufficient capital? And who is to say that much capital will be required?
In short, a lot of speculation, and number of statements not backed up, and a a heap of false generalities.
2004-05-20 17:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]Satinover suggests that somehow the mathematically inclined folk will take over. He sort of mixes genetic engineering into this 'cognitive elite.'
Have you ever me a group less capable of seizing power than advanced mathematicians and physicists?
And if we are going to be so able to increase intelligence with genetic engineering, wont this bust open entrance to 'the club' to the children of anyone with sufficient capital? And who is to say that much capital will be required?
In short, a lot of speculation, and number of statements not backed up, and a a heap of false generalities.[/QUOTE]
Once again, I think the National Socialist persective is relevant here. Mathematicians and physicists are brilliant almost by definition, but, as you point out, most don't understand the dynamics of POWER very well. In one of the old Star Trek movies, a character comments that "scientists have always been pawns of the military." That is true for the most part. Think of Oppenheimer and the Los Alamos physicists. There weren't very many people in the world who could have done what they did, yet they willing handed over their creation to military -- people who couldn't do what they did if the spent their entire natural lives working on nuclear physics. If scientists would ban together and DEMAND control over the technologies they create, they could rule the world. Ultimately, the people who run things are the ones who are most adept at aquiring and keeping POWER. Any paleos disagree ;-)?
2004-05-21 00:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]What is more, the AmRen forum happily indulges Jews who post the most vile and bigoted things about the Irish, Eastern Europeans, Catholics, and working-class whites, while censoring even the most mild remarks about the Jewish role in funding the NAACP and opening our borders to colored people. In other words, the ethnic and religious hatreds of Jews are protected and encouraged, while opinions that don't suit Jewish interests and tastes are forbidden. Taylor doesn't manage the AmRen message board, but it isn't a far stretch of the imagination to believe that the group moderator's policy reflects the views of Taylor and AmRen in general.[/QUOTE]
I asked AntiYuppie about the location of this forum. He referenced another old OD thread, which discussed the subject of Am. Ren forums. The best I could find was this one
[url]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arlist/[/url]
Is this what you were talking about AY?
These posts seem to have dropped off the map. I've lost several posts today. Anyone else notice this?
2004-05-21 00:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I asked AntiYuppie about the location of this forum. He referenced another old OD thread, which discussed the subject of Am. Ren forums. The best I could find was this one
[url]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arlist/[/url]
Is this what you were talking about AY?
These posts seem to have dropped off the map. I've lost several posts today. Anyone else notice this?[/QUOTE]
Okie, I don't think there is an AMRen forum -- just that Yahoo mailing list. From what I remember, AY wrote a good article on the Jewish Question and tried to post it to Taylor's yahoo list, and it was censored.
2004-05-21 01:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]I'm not sure what Taylor's personal stance is, but AmRen itself is not opposed to nonwhite immigration per se. They are against immigrants from Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa because they "have low IQ and high crime rates," but they welcome with open arms "high IQ" Korean, Chinese, and Jewish immigrants.[/QUOTE]
Taylor is not for opening the gates to Asians. At a previous AR Conf., he said this: "What happens when Asians arrive in large numbers? The effect is more ambiguous. Some North Asians commit fewer crimes than whites, make more money, and do better in school. Then there are others like the Hmong from Cambodia, 60 percent of whom are on welfare. However, [B]and this is a point I wish to emphasize,[/B] it doesn't matter whether Japanese or Chinese build societies that are, in some respects, objectively superior to those of Europeans. It matters only that they are different. "When large numbers of North Asian immigrants moved into Monterey Park, California, whites didn't leave because the newcomers were rioting, or opening crack houses. They moved out because Monterey Park, in countless ways, simply ceased to be the town they had grown up in or the town they had moved to. They didn't care that these Asians probably had an average IQ of 105, were responsible parents and law abiding people. Whites saw their way of life melting away beneath their feet, and they moved away in the hope of finding it again elsewhere. "Once again, the particulars don't matter. It is unwelcome, irreversible racial change that matters."
As for Jews, it's silly to think that Jared is trying to bring down the movement for the love of jews. One of his best friends is Mark Weber of IHR. At the last AR Conf the jewish element had virtually vanished. The jews had disappeared from the speaker's list. Instead who was it that headlined the conference? Joseph Sobran, who DID talk about you-know-who.
2004-05-21 04:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Okie, I don't think there is an AMRen forum -- just that Yahoo mailing list. From what I remember, AY wrote a good article on the Jewish Question and tried to post it to Taylor's yahoo list, and it was censored.[/QUOTE]
Here it is, along with the predessessor thread to this one.
Ladies and Gentlemen, * I am somewhat disturbed by this board's policy of "welcoming" Jews into what is ostensibly a White Nationalist movement. For one thing, we must remember that it is largely Jewish ideology, financial support, and political/academic clout that put America and the rest of the West into today's dire situation. For decades, Jewish individuals and organizations championed the negro (funding the NAACP and more militant groups like the black panthers), spawned political ideologies hostile towards occidental culture (Marxism, in particular its recent "New Left" and Frankfurt School incarnations), and championed open-borders immigration for colored Third World peoples via various leftist, libertarian, and neoconservative Jewish groups. All of the sudden, after all of these years of Jewish invective and vitriole against "evil white Christians," they turn around and say, "but we're white...we've been white all along" now that it is politically expedient for them. Something clearly isn't right when one's enemy suddenly turns on a dime and calls himself a "friend". * * The fact of the matter is, Jews care not a whit for Occidental culture or with conserving the ethnic identity of any gentile nation. Their one and only motivating question is "is it good for the Jews?" Now that negroes have finally figured out that they have been used as tools and cannon fodder in the Judaeo-Bolshevik war against the white west, they are now more anti-Jewish than any other group. So low and behold, opportunistic Jews go scuttling to the very white people and organizations they smeared as "racist" just a few years ago to protect them from the colored man. This opportunistic farce would be laughable but for the fact that it seems to be effective. * * To understand the dangers of letting self-identified Jews into the membership (to say nothing about the leadership) of a movement like AmRen, one need only look at the example of neconservatism. I'm sure that Mr. Taylor is as aware of the phenomenon of neoconservative subversion of the Right as I am. Surely he knows the story of what happened to National Review ever since Buckley threw open the doors to Jewish neocons. Shortly after the neocon infiltration, NR (once the stronghold of great minds like Burnham and Kirk) purged the ideological heirs to the true American Right (Taylor's own friends Sam Francis, Joe Sobran, etc) from its pages to make room for Norman Podhoretz and his friends. Now NR's pages are graced by the puerile babbling of Jonah Goldberg (who informs us that "Jews have more right to Israel than America has to Texas") and to Steve Schwartz, who approvingly quotes Frankfurt Schooler Walter Benjamin and speaks fondly of Leon Trotsky in an ostensibly "conservative" publication. Similar things have happened on a smaller scale to conservative internet venues such as Free Republic (once a stroghold for authentic populist conservatism, it now swarms with Kahanites and their secular neocon counterparts), TownHall, NewsMax, etc. * * The problem is even wider than journals and internet forums would suggest. One could very well argue that the entire GOP establishment is now dominated by Jewish neocons who are motivated first and foremost by specifically Jewish tribal concerns. Ever since Nixon, Reagan, and others threw the doors open to Jewish "anti- Communists" (who were "anti-Communist" simply because the anti-Semitic Stalin had defeated the Judaeo-Bolshevik wing of the party), the GOP's foreign policy serves Israeli rather than American interests in the Middle East. * * Does Mr. Taylor really want American Renaissance to move in this direction? Does he want an organization that ostensibily represents the concerns and aspirations of White Americans to be hijacked by Jewish neocons who wish for it to serve the Jewish collective to the exclusion of everything else? Mr. Taylor wrote an excellent essay "Teaching Millions More to Hate Us" where he told the truth about the Israeli lobby's role in pushing the war against Iraq. Does he really believe that the Jews at AmRen have motives any more pure or altruistic than those who occupy GOP thinktanks? * Already one can see the creeping tentacles of Jewish subversion on this board. We have a "corgi" who hates the Irish (and no doubt any other ethnically self-aware white European group) but champions the cause of thuggish Mestizos. Just as the Jewish neocons turned the GOP into the party of open borders immigration with the Third World (because there is nothing a Jew fears more than an ethnically pure host nation), Jews in AmRen will try to move the organization in this direction, and in the meantime alienating the very groups of White American whose interests AmRen SHOULD be serving. * I close by saying that this statement of mine violates none of the board rules, and I hope that the moderators can let it stand or fall on its own merits rather than censoring the truth.
[url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=7303&mode=linear]Jewish Subversion of American Renaissance[/url]
I was sort of busy when AY first posted this thread, and didn't have time to participate in it. Reading the thread, I have to admit, in light of what Feric Jagger tells me now, I think this dismissal of Am.Ren. just because they refused to publish AntiYuppie's essay seems a little excessive and premature.
AntiYuppie's essay was honest, forthright, and well-reasoned, but given that it amounted it seems to me to a head on attack on the moderators existing policy and would be seen by many not familar with us and him as an ulimatum that Am. Ren. institute an explicit anti-semitic agenda and expel all Jewish members, I have to understand the reasoning of the moderators in spiking the piece, in consideration of what seemed to be the nature of the board, which is not really a free speech forum like LF or even this.
2004-05-21 04:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Feric Jaggar]Taylor is not for opening the gates to Asians. At a previous AR Conf., he said this: "What happens when Asians arrive in large numbers? The effect is more ambiguous. Some North Asians commit fewer crimes than whites, make more money, and do better in school. Then there are others like the Hmong from Cambodia, 60 percent of whom are on welfare. However, [B]and this is a point I wish to emphasize,[/B] it doesn't matter whether Japanese or Chinese build societies that are, in some respects, objectively superior to those of Europeans. It matters only that they are different.....
"Once again, the particulars don't matter. It is unwelcome, irreversible racial change that matters."
Thanks for digging this thread up Feric. It shows what I say seems to be a general tendency of this forum - to use vague, broad generalities in dismissing groups - i.e. that Am. Ren. are "IQ elitists, not nationalists" rather than looking at what these groups are actually saying and doing.
[quote=Feric Jaggar]As for Jews, it's silly to think that Jared is trying to bring down the movement for the love of jews. One of his best friends is Mark Weber of IHR. At the last AR Conf the jewish element had virtually vanished. The jews had disappeared from the speaker's list. Instead who was it that headlined the conference? Joseph Sobran, who DID talk about you-know-who.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for this up to date perspective, which is needed I think to balance what often seems to be a slightly paranoic consensus which tends to dominate this forum, without taking all the facts into consideration.
I don't deny the need for a certain amount of caution in evaluating groups like Am. Ren., but this caution can definitely go overboard, and in fact it is obvious that people like Triskelion/V.O. came here expressly to exagerate this fear to an unhealthy degree so as to prevent cooperation of the nationalistic right as much as possible with moderate groups like Am.Ren. see his statements on the above mentioned Am. Ren Thread
[quote=Triskelion]Given what we all now know about the reality of what AR is for and what kind of people seem to be drawn to that group it seems that only one course of action is reasonable and that is to condemn AR in the most brutally honest of terms. Groups like AR (and there are several of them in the states) are going to great lenghts to wreck what little chance exists for a genuine and viable racialist movement from starting in the states. We simply can't allow well inclined Americans to be lied to about what that group is and what why it is no alternative.
[url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showpost.php?p=42608&postcount=44]Jewish Subversion of American Renaissance[/url]
It is interesting reviewing this thread, and comparing it with what NA head Kevin Alfred Strom posted. It is transparently obvious that the supposedly "moderate" Trisk is compared to Kevin Strom. Strom actually gives Taylor reaonable credit where credit is due, where Trisk takes the hardline position of villifying Taylor, like Buchanan, as another "traitor" to the movement, virtually identical to the Francis = Foxman equation attributed to the hardline Linderites by AntiYuppie.
I wonder once again, given this, if the supposition that "Triskelion" could have been in fact an actual paid AP of someone is really that farfetched at all. His line, and logic, when analyzed closely, certainly bear a lot more resemblance to what an AP would do than one might initially assume from his odd, geekish, essay quoting style.
I think it bears good food for thought that our attitutdes might have been subtly manipulated in the past by Trisks against useful political/educational/progandal activity in viable organizations, which I still think Am.Ren. could be, and be more aware of that possibility from now on when we're tempted to go along with "the Taylor et.al. are traitors" more than we really should.
2004-05-21 09:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Have you ever me a group less capable of seizing power than advanced mathematicians and physicists?[/QUOTE]
Good point.
I do think that he may have the motivations right, however.
Again, Sir Arthur Keith would call this classic "race forming behaviour."
They're trying to form a separate genetic caste - externalizing costs onto other groups while internalizing benefits for themselves and their progeny.
Whether the strategy will work is quite another question.
Walter
2004-05-21 13:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I was sort of busy when AY first posted this thread, and didn't have time to participate in it. Reading the thread, I have to admit, in light of what Feric Jagger tells me now, I think this dismissal of Am.Ren. just because they refused to publish AntiYuppie's essay seems a little excessive and premature.[/QUOTE]
Here's the reasoning behind ARList's moderation of posts. A few years back AR had a discussion group that operated via email. My guess is that JTaylor envisioned this as a sort of extension of the AmRen publication. It started off doing just that, reporting issues of race in the news, immigration, crime, etc. But over time, the subject matter changed such that the focus was about 90% jews. Jared Taylor didn't step in and shut it down. Rather, the fellow who ran the list, George McDaniel ( [url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0967215420/ref=pd_sim_books_5/103-1118413-2230224?v=glance&s=books[/url] [url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0965638324/qid=1085144807/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-1118413-2230224?v=glance&s=books[/url] ) could not devote the time and energies to maintaining the list. Nevertheless, I'm sure Taylor did not anticipate the direction the mailings would go. After it's demise, much of that group migrated to the Sam Francis discussion group and when that went under a number of us (like me) came here. I do not agree with the modern ARList's strict moderation policies. It splits too many hairs. For instance, they do allow criticism of Jews as long as that's not the main focus of the posting. Too much of a gray zone. They'd be better off allowing anything that's not abusive toward other members, etc. That being said, I do see what JT is trying to do with the ARList (have it as a sort of active extension of the publication) but in practice it seems to step on a few toes.
2004-05-21 14:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Feric Jaggar]Here's the reasoning behind ARList's moderation of posts. A few years back AR had a discussion group that operated via email. My guess is that JTaylor envisioned this as a sort of extension of the AmRen publication. It started off doing just that, reporting issues of race in the news, immigration, crime, etc. But over time, the subject matter changed such that the focus was about 90% jews. Jared Taylor didn't step in and shut it down. Rather, the fellow who ran the list, George McDaniel ( [url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0967215420/ref=pd_sim_books_5/103-1118413-2230224?v=glance&s=books[/url] [url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0965638324/qid=1085144807/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-1118413-2230224?v=glance&s=books[/url] ) could not devote the time and energies to maintaining the list. Nevertheless, I'm sure Taylor did not anticipate the direction the mailings would go. After it's demise, much of that group migrated to the Sam Francis discussion group and when that went under a number of us (like me) came here.
Interesting story, especially about the Sam Francis Forum, from whence a lot of us came. I'd never realized fully how that came about.
I know people worry a lot about these lists, from both sides. The worry's we have have been well expressed. At the same time there are the worries of the other side that hardline NS and/or AP's (its really hard to tell them apart a lot of the time) who are hostile to conservatism, and democracywill come in, try to steer all the topics montously and unbalancedly toward the jewish question, denounce anyone who opposes them as a traitor, (including the people who have made great public sacrificesfor the cause and the board) and do so in the service of nefarious agenda's and groups in a underhanded and dishonest way. The Trisk affair is a perfect example.
[quote=Feric Jaggar]I do not agree with the modern ARList's strict moderation policies. It splits too many hairs. For instance, they do allow criticism of Jews as long as that's not the main focus of the posting. Too much of a gray zone. They'd be better off allowing anything that's not abusive toward other members, etc. That being said, I do see what JT is trying to do with the ARList (have it as a sort of active extension of the publication) but in practice it seems to step on a few toes.[/QUOTE]
Name a board whose moderation policy people do like.
Like someone told me, the fact of the matter is paleo's and nationalists, for all their bitching and moaning about the masses who just want to sit back and watch TV and be spoon fed what they want to hear, aren;'t to much different a lot of the time. Forums and organizations, who are little supported practically, are nonetheless expected to magically address all the myriad concerns and gripes people raise, often without much understanding of what a tough job this is.
That would be a real depictation of "the failure of paleoconservatism".
2004-05-21 18:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Here it is, along with the predessessor thread to this one.
I was sort of busy when AY first posted this thread, and didn't have time to participate in it. Reading the thread, I have to admit, in light of what Feric Jagger tells me now, I think this dismissal of Am.Ren. just because they refused to publish AntiYuppie's essay seems a little excessive and premature.
AntiYuppie's essay was honest, forthright, and well-reasoned, but given that it amounted it seems to me to a head on attack on the moderators existing policy and would be seen by many not familar with us and him as an ulimatum that Am. Ren. institute an explicit anti-semitic agenda and expel all Jewish members, I have to understand the reasoning of the moderators in spiking the piece, in consideration of what seemed to be the nature of the board, which is not really a free speech forum like LF or even this.[/QUOTE]
The fact remains though that Taylor's mods spiked AY's piece even though it's not "anti-semitic" by any standard other than the ADL's. This wasn't VNN-style hateful drivel, yet Taylor's people spiked it.
So once again, my sentiment on this issue is that we need should ignore opinion and speculation about people's personal loyalties and stick with FACTS when assessing Jared Taylor and his organization American Renaissance.
The facts tell us that the biggest obstacle to building a geniune Nationalist movement in this country is Jewish influence. The facts tell us that the Jews have been involved in every subversive, anti-White movement for the last 100 years. The facts tell us that the Jews have also been involved in passing every destructive piece of anti-White legislation for the last 100 years. Moreoever, the facts tell us that Jewish influence corrupted the conservative movement, and the facts tell us that Jewish influence corrupted the old school paleo-libertarian movement as well.
Basically, the facts tell us that Jewish influence is a huge problem in America and the West.
So with that in mind, what do the facts tell about Jared Taylor?
Well, he wants criticism of Jews on his mailing list silenced. He likes to distance himself from people who discuss the Jewish question. He doesn't see anything wrong with inviting Jews into the movement. And he thinks being "respectable" in the eyes of the people who are working to destroy us is important (Jewish and Gentile elites).
So, it seems to me that the facts suggest more than caution when it comes to Jared Taylor -- it seems to me that the facts more than justify the label traitor.
The only way one can avoid this conclusion is by taking the position that working with Jews does not amount treason to the racial nationalist cause (even in light of what we know about how Jews operate and how they corrupted old school conservatism and libertarianism).
So I think the burden should be on Taylor at this point.
If he's not a traitor and if he is a genuine White Nationalist and not an IQ elitist, he needs to send a stong signal that shows he understands that the future of the White race is inextricably bound up with the Jewish question. And if he doesn't do that, regardless of any friendships in his personal life that appartently have no impact on his public judgment, then I think the facts speak for themselves.
Finally, unlike Trisk, I'm willing to give credit where credit is due. Taylor seems like he has a first rate mind, and he has obviously done some valuable work. But that doesn't mean he's with us. David Horowitz, George Will, and William F. Buckley have all done useful work too at one time or another, and they're not with us either.
2004-05-21 22:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]The fact that they didn't run my article isn't what angers me. What angers me is their Jim Robinsonian double standard, that censors something mild like that coming from our side, while allowing the Jewish supremacist "corgi" and his friends to make remarks like, "What's 20 miles long an has an IQ of ten? A St. Patrick's Day Parade" and other vile slander about "dirty Irish Micks" and "Catholic homosexuals who should grow up and get a real religion" (like what...Noahidism???)[/QUOTE]
That those opinions were admitted is an odious fact. But its also true that I've been on the list since the beginning and I haven't seen anything like that in a long time. It's not like I'm sticking up for the Jews (some of my best enemies are Jews :caiphas: :hitler: :caiphas: ) but I just don't see the philosemitism there. I watch the posts and I don't see it. I don't think corgi's been there in ages. In fact, I'd forgotten him until you brought up that quote.
2004-05-21 22:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]So, it seems to me that the facts suggest more than caution when it comes to Jared Taylor -- it seems to me that the facts more than justify the label traitor.[/QUOTE]
Do you reject the progress made in Europe among parties like the Belgian Vlaams Blok, the French National Front, the British National Party, the Austrian Freedom Party, the Italian Northern League and the Italian National Alliance because they do not exclude Jews? Are they all traitors to the cause?
Personally, I think we should at least wait until we racists have taken over before we turn on each other. If Hitler had ordered the Night of the Long Knives in 1926 (instead of 1934) he never would have made it to power.
2004-05-22 00:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Feric Jaggar]That those opinions were admitted is an odious fact. But its also true that I've been on the list since the beginning and I haven't seen anything like that in a long time. It's not like I'm sticking up for the Jews (some of my best enemies are Jews :caiphas: :hitler: :caiphas: ) but I just don't see the philosemitism there. I watch the posts and I don't see it. I don't think corgi's been there in ages. In fact, I'd forgotten him until you brought up that quote.[/QUOTE]
OK, well then let's do a test. You're a long time member of Taylor's list. Take AY's essay, or write you own version, and try and post it. I think we'd all like to see what happens.
2004-05-22 00:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]OK, well then let's do a test. You're a long time member of Taylor's list. Take AY's essay, or write you own version, and try and post it. I think we'd all like to see what happens.[/QUOTE]
AY was upset that the anti-Jewish comments were being censored while the philo-Jewish comments were being allowed. I do not and did not deny that the anti-Jüdisch comments are being censored. In fact I said that I did not approve of AR's tactic. My comment had to do with the presence of philo-semitic postings and posters. If my comments were unclear I apologize.
2004-05-22 00:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Feric Jaggar]Do you reject the progress made in Europe among parties like the Belgian Vlaams Blok, the French National Front, the British National Party, the Austrian Freedom Party, the Italian Northern League and the Italian National Alliance because they do not exclude Jews? Are they all traitors to the cause?
Feric,
I don't know enough about the situation in Europe to comment. I am wondering, however, to what extent the dymanics in Europe apply to the situation we find ourselves in on this side of the pond. Over here, as you well know, Jews insinuated themselves into the conservative movement and took over (spawning neoconservatism). We therefore have a good reason for being wary of working with Jews.
Now, this may not be true in Europe. I understand that. Like I said, I'm not that familiar with the situation over there. But on the other hand, according to another pro-White Nationalist web site that's published out of Britain, the BNP has been backtracking on repatriation and moderating its position on other key issues.
Now, if they're only doing that to play politics, widen their base of support, and win elections, then that's great. It's obviously a smart tactic (as long as the non-Whites ultimately get repatriated, I personally don't care what the BNP says to get elected.)
But is it possible the BNP is moderating its positions because of subversive Jewish influence? It happened here; why not there?
That's why I firmly believe that it makes no sense to work with Jews under any circumstances -- because even in the best of circumstances, you never really know what you're getting when you work with a jew, but you do know one thing with a certainty -- that Jews don't do anything unless it serves Jewish interests.
You can bet that if Jews are working with the LePen's National Front or Haider's Freedom Party, it's for their own reasons, not because they give a damn about the future of the White race. (It's probably because they are beginning to realize their open borders position is now a threat to their own power).
Personally, I think we should at least wait until we racists have taken over before we turn on each other. If Hitler had ordered the Night of the Long Knives in 1926 (instead of 1934) he never would have made it to power.[/QUOTE]
Well I agree with you completely, of course.
Where we disagree is on whether Taylor is a "racist" in the same sense you and I are "racists." So I'm not sure your parallel with the Night of the Long Knives applies here.
As an alternative parallel, however, I will suggest this: if Hitler had started working with the Bolsheviks in 1926 (the enemy), he probably would never have made it to power that way either.
2004-05-22 05:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]The fact remains though that Taylor's mods spiked AY's piece even though it's not "anti-semitic" by any standard other than the ADL's. This wasn't VNN-style hateful drivel, yet Taylor's people spiked it.
Well it may not reach the level of VNN, although I don't follow that board, but it certainly could be viewed as anti-semitic a lot more than much of the stuff labeled as such by the ADL. While not polemical, it is very broad, negative, and sweeping, re: [quote=AntiYuppie]Something clearly isn't right when one's enemy suddenly turns on a dime and calls himself a "friend". * * The fact of the matter is, Jews care not a whit for Occidental culture or with conserving the ethnic identity of any gentile nation......
Really reading overall like sort of a broad manifesto.
So the anti-semitic complaint really is questionable. I'm not really sure the criticism that it did not violate forum rules is valid either. Although the rules really on criticism of jews is somewhat broad, in a similar way to this forum's rules on criticism of religion, i.e. the forum owners do not want their forum to be taken over and dominated by this.
So once again, my sentiment on this issue is that we need should ignore opinion and speculation about people's personal loyalties and stick with FACTS when assessing Jared Taylor and his organization American Renaissance.
The facts tell us that the biggest obstacle to building a geniune Nationalist movement in this country is Jewish influence.......... Basically, the facts tell us that Jewish influence is a huge problem in America and the West.
Well I would characterize this position really as the interpretation that really the jews are the problem in America, and wanting to discuss anything else for a nationalist is a diversion.
So with that in mind, what do the facts tell about Jared Taylor?
Well, he wants criticism of Jews on his mailing list silenced. He likes to distance himself from people who discuss the Jewish question. He doesn't see anything wrong with inviting Jews into the movement. And he thinks being "respectable" in the eyes of the people who are working to destroy us is important (Jewish and Gentile elites).
So, it seems to me that the facts suggest more than caution when it comes to Jared Taylor -- it seems to me that the facts more than justify the label traitor. Well, you're interpretation again. Seems like you've reneged on the "credit due" part. "Traitor" doesn't allow any.
And there's another interpretation that seems more factual. Not allowing for divergences in opinion from your own is totalitarian. And when opinions or lins of thought start getting associated with totalitarianism, they lose some of their legitimate right to participate in free discussion. That's the side AR had to consider when coming up with the rules.
The only way one can avoid this conclusion is by taking the position that working with Jews does not amount treason to the racial nationalist cause (even in light of what we know about how Jews operate and how they corrupted paleo-conservatism and paleo-libertarianism).
Maybe you could elaborate here.
So I think the burden should be on Taylor at this point.
If he's not a traitor and if he is a genuine White Nationalist and not an IQ elitist, he needs to send a stong signal that shows he understands that the future of the White race is inextricably bound up with the Jewish question.
So that's all there is, "the jewish question". And anyone who doesn't agree witgh you on this point is a traitor.
Finally, unlike Trisk, I'm willing to give credit where credit is due. Taylor seems like he has a first rate mind, and he has obviously done some valuable work. But that doesn't mean he's with us. David Horowitz, George Will, and William F. Buckley have all done useful work too at one time or another, and they're not with us either.[/QUOTE]
Taylor = Horowitz and Buckley. This is too much like Francis = Foxman. Again I don't see credit here enough to buy a piece of gum.
2004-05-22 05:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Feric Jaggar]That those opinions were admitted is an odious fact. But its also true that I've been on the list since the beginning and I haven't seen anything like that in a long time. It's not like I'm sticking up for the Jews (some of my best enemies are Jews :caiphas: :hitler: :caiphas: ) but I just don't see the philosemitism there. I watch the posts and I don't see it. I don't think corgi's been there in ages. In fact, I'd forgotten him until you brought up that quote.[/QUOTE]AntiYuppie is usually pretty good at picking up on moderators inconsistencies. But sometimes I think its missed that forum moderation is something of an art, not a science. And things always change. You have to be careful when you say something someone said on the other side a while back is all the justification you need today.
2004-05-22 06:19 | User Profile
So that's all there is, "the jewish question". And anyone who doesn't agree witgh you on this point is a traitor.
Okie -- please name another race other than Jews that controls 90% of what Americans see or hear. Or name another race other than Jews which molds and shapes public opinion via TV and movies and magazines, or, dominates leftism and homosexual rights and feminism and so forth.
Please name such a race or ethnic group. Please be as specific as possible.
2004-05-22 06:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Okie -- please name another race other than Jews that controls 90% of what Americans see or hear. Or name another race other than Jews which molds and shapes public opinion via TV and movies and magazines, or, dominates leftism and homosexual rights and feminism and so forth.
Please name such a race or ethnic group. Please be as specific as possible.
-------------[/QUOTE]Jews are the most powerful group, at least person for person, and one could perhaps arguably absolutely - group in America - that is true.
2004-05-22 08:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Jews are the most powerful group, at least person for person, and one could perhaps arguably absolutely - group in America - that is true.[/QUOTE]
More powerful than the English/U.S. East-coast establishment WASP elite?
Sure the jews are culture wreckers extraordinaire, but I've been coming to the opinion that they have been allowed to work their satanic arts because it serves the current purpose of said WASP elite. Course I may just be too conspiracy minded.
2004-05-22 10:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]More powerful than the English/U.S. East-coast establishment WASP elite?
Sure the jews are culture wreckers extraordinaire, but I've been coming to the opinion that they have been allowed to work their satanic arts because it serves the current purpose of said WASP elite. Course I may just be too conspiracy minded.[/QUOTE] Excellent point. That's why I'm not big on the NA/WN/neonazi posts. Concentrating on race only is a mistake. There are plenty of folks who pass the "white test" who are greedy, power-hungry, just plain mean, enemies of freedom every bit as any foreign entity that has infiltrated the US. It's just stupid to say, "he's white so he must be OK and my brother". As with the NA/WN/neonazi posters here...people of narrow vision have narrow accomplishments.
2004-05-22 11:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]More powerful than the English/U.S. East-coast establishment WASP elite?
Sure the jews are culture wreckers extraordinaire, but I've been coming to the opinion that they have been allowed to work their satanic arts because it serves the current purpose of said WASP elite. Course I may just be too conspiracy minded.[/QUOTE]
I think they formed a coalition circa 1973.
They've melded into a single entity.
Lots of the Yankee bluebloods married tribalists. Howard Dean is one, if memory serves.
Come to think of it, so is Kerry, no?
Carroll Quigley didn't live long enough to diagnose the thing, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that's the conclusion he would have made.
Walter
2004-05-22 15:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]More powerful than the English/U.S. East-coast establishment WASP elite?
Sure the jews are culture wreckers extraordinaire, but I've been coming to the opinion that they have been allowed to work their satanic arts because it serves the current purpose of said WASP elite. Course I may just be too conspiracy minded.[/QUOTE]
Tex, I think there's something to this too. We focus on Jews on a lot on this board, but the East Coast Gentile Elite is not exactly a powerless group either. Jews wouldn't have gotten very far over the years without without their support and enthusiastic willingness to betray middle and working class Whites. So perhaps we need to point our guns at both Jews and the elite Gentiles.
2004-05-22 17:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE]There is no question in my mind that there is an alliance between the urban northeast WASP Plutocracy and the Jews. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, I agree.
I also suspect that it happened around 1973 with the fall of Nixon.
There's a lot more to those events than the fall of Tricky Dick. There was a real change of the guard that took place, a whole new dispensation.
Carroll Quigley wrote about the WASP establishment in the 1960's, and he was Clinton's mentor. It seems clear that Bill understood the WASP part of the equation well from Quigley. Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, after all. The WASP establishment had their eyes on that boy wonder from his high school days.
I wonder who filled him in on the Jewish thing? He sure undertood that one, too, of course, but I would love to have been a fly on the wall when that whole aspect of the deal was explained to him.
It probably happened at law school.
The Bush family is another good example. As far as I know they haven't married into the Tribe yet, but they understand that they hold over half the power, witness the total neo-Kahn control of Bush policy.
The WASPs are really junior shareholders in the thing now. How the mighty have fallen (or should I say "been co-opted").
Walter
2004-05-22 19:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Tex, I think there's something to this too. We focus on Jews on a lot on this board, but the East Coast Gentile Elite is not exactly a powerless group either. Jews wouldn't have gotten very far over the years without without their support and enthusiastic willingness to betray middle and working class Whites. So perhaps we need to point our guns at both Jews and the elite Gentiles.[/QUOTE] Kevin MacDonald elaborates on this idea of an alliance between leftist elite northeastern gentiles and jews largely creating the dominant intellectual fabric of modern America, focusing specifically on John Dewey and his compatriots.
Kellan's idea of cultural pluralism as a model for the United States was popularized among gentile intellectuals by John Dewey, who in turn was promoted by Jewish intellectuals. "If lapsed Congregationalists like Dewey did not need immigrants to inspire them to press against the boundaries of even the most liberal of Protestant sensibilities, Dewey's kind was encouraged in that direction by the Jewish intellectuals they encountered in urban academic and literary communities"................................Henry Commager described Dewey as "the guide, the mentor, and the conscience of the American people; it is scarcely an exageration to say that for a generation no issue was clarified until Dewey had spoken. Dewey was the foremost advocate of "progressive education" and helped establish the New School for Social Research and the ACLU, both essentially Jewish organizations. As with several other gentiles discussed in this volume, Dewey, "whose lack of presence as a writer, speaker, or personality makes his popularity somewhat of a mystery" thus represents the public face of a movement dominated by Jewish intellectuals.
(Culture of Critique, Chapter 7 - Jewish involvement in shaping U.S. Immigration Policy)
2004-05-22 19:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Many WN's make the argument that these WASP elites are simply opportunists who are serving Jewish masters in order to remain in power. The question is whether we would still have a form of gentile "neoconservatism" in the absence of Jewish interests. I suspect that we would. True, it would not make Israel the focus of US foreign policy, but it would continue to make the interests of the international investor classes the centerpiece of both warmaking and diplomacy. So rather than keeping the Middle East safe for Israel, we'd be keeping the world safe for Wall Street investors and transnational corporations, which in my mind is still an ugly state of affairs.....
On the domestic front, while we would not have Jewish agitation for open borders (as a tactic to insure that Jews are not the most visible minority group), we would still have the Wall Street plutocrats pushing for open borders so that they could bring in cheap labor - both as domestic servants and as minimum-wage owners for agrobusiness and the textile industry. White Middle Americans would still be disenfranchised by a gentile "neoconservatism," in other words, and would still be fighting senseless wars.[/QUOTE]
I don't know for sure if the gentile elites in places say like business and the military, would really have gone over to social liberalism and internationalism as they are going to day without a strong jewish influence. The business community is far from a monolithic force. The progressive influenced urban business community of the northeast has for instance always had in opposition historically the hard-right inclinations of say Texas people like Nelson Bunker Hunt, who supported the John Birch society and were widely if discretely viewed as anti-semites. (even though by our standards they certainly weren't) similarly the military has long had struggles with gentile officers suspicious of jewish power, as Kevin MacDonald descibed in the Army. If the anti-jewish forces now seem in eclipse, you can bet it is in no small part due to the continued strong activity of the philo-semites and of course their jewish supporters.
Eventually the business community seems to have gone over to open borders etc., but this is sort of inevitable considering the continuing cultural subversion they encountered. The business "community" after all, has never been particularly cohesive, and are very susceptible to outside manipulation. Like America at large.
[quote=AntiYuppie]This goes back to my point on the Hitler thread that one of Hitler's errors (contra the Strasserites, Roehm, and others purged in 1934) was to seek an alliance with the Wall Street and Sterling plutocracies, who are ideologically as much the enemies of Volkisch nationalism as any Jew. Like the Jew, their God is Mammon.
Good thing Trisk isn't here any more. He would have raked you over the coals on that :lol:
2004-05-22 20:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]More powerful than the English/U.S. East-coast establishment WASP elite?
Sure the jews are culture wreckers extraordinaire, but I've been coming to the opinion that they have been allowed to work their satanic arts because it serves the current purpose of said WASP elite. Course I may just be too conspiracy minded.[/QUOTE]
Not much "P" (Protestant) about these characters anymore. Most are secular, and the nominally religious ones belong to extremely liberal bodies such as the Episcopal Church USA, United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Reformed Church in America, etc. -- all of them National Council of Churches Members.
2004-05-22 20:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]A reading of many WSJ editorials, even today, reveals that their fondness for open borders with Mexico is not motivated by the same multicultural ideology that drives leftist (e.g. ADL) open borderists. They pay lip service to "diversity" to win liberal allies to be sure, but their primary motive is the bottom line.
I'm not sure if it isn't the opposite. They pay lip service to the bottom line, but their real motive is diversity.
This is pretty much the mentality of the quintessential business-libertarian open borders guru, Julian Simon, who influences through his students such as Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute. Chilton Williamson in he Immigration Mystique pretty much demolishes the bottom line arguments of Simon.
[quote=AntiYuppie]The old-school, paternal industrialist is a thing of the past. Today's investor classes, if they identify with anything at all, do so with their foreign counterparts - i.e. other rootless speculators and transnationalists.
Well actually they have been replaced by the "institutional investors" so much a product of the "managerial revolution" described by Francis.
[quote=AntiYuppie]With this "bottom line is all that matters" mindset, they would have pushed for easy access to Mexican servants and dime-a-day workers even if Frankfurt School multiculturalism had never seen the light of day. Any opposition they would have received from within the business community would be due to residual "paternalist" businessmen, who by and large have vanished not because of multiculturalist ideology, but because the nature of our economy has changed.[/QUOTE] Well this "bottom line is all that matters" mindset is of course the express thing MacDonald points to as the goal of the Frankfurt School, creating a climate of radical individualism as a bulwark against gentile unity annd cohesiveness. The economic change of course has influenced this, but this is of course a result of "the managerial revolution" again. And the managerial revolutin as Francis makes clear was not merely fate, it was produced by definite social forces.
2004-05-22 21:31 | User Profile
More powerful than the English/U.S. East-coast establishment WASP elite?
Sure the jews are culture wreckers extraordinaire, but I've been coming to the opinion that they have been allowed to work their satanic arts because it serves the current purpose of said WASP elite. Course I may just be too conspiracy minded.
Sure, Yankee WASPs are powerful. But do Yankee WASPs own and control most of Hollywood and the media? Nope. Newspapers? Nope. Banking and finance? Nope. Most leftist groups? Nope.
Yes, Whites gave the Jews power, in a manner of speaking, by saying nothing as the Jews came to town and set up shop. And now those same Whites cannot say anything negative about the Jews or they will lose all respectability. So those Whites now work with the Jews instead, to preserve their own greedy interests, as someone suggested. But the Jews are still the pointmen re: American culture. That fact is important. Very important.
Let us not forget that 10 Jews can run rings around 200 gentiles when it comes to subverting a culture, and, making money or setting up organizations. Jews, via their unique history, are naturals at the shell game, the hustle, the fast-talk shuffle and the big sell.
2004-05-22 21:42 | User Profile
OK, let's run through some of this.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Well it may not reach the level of VNN, although I don't follow that board, but it certainly could be viewed as anti-semitic a lot more than much of the stuff labeled as such by the ADL. While not polemical, it is very broad, negative, and sweeping, re: {AY's inserted comments } Really reading overall like sort of a broad manifesto.
A lot of things can be "viewed" as anti-semitic. Criticism of Israel can be viewed "anti-Semitic." Dramatizing Christ's last hours can be viewed as "anti-semitic." Pointing out that Marx, Boas, Kaganovitch, and the Frankfurt schoolers are Jews can be "viewed as anti-Semitic." That's one of our biggest obstacles. Anything Jews and their Gentile lackeys don't like can be viewed as "anti-Semitic," because it is the Jews themselves and their gentile lackeys that control discourse in America and set the boundaries of permissible dissent.
Now, with that in mind, let's look at how Taylor responds to this situation. Like a damn fool, he buys into the idea. Implicitly, Taylor seems to agree with the notion that it's OK for Jews to determine what can and can't be said in this country. And that's pathetic. Not to mention craven.
Sorry, but to me, that attitude is one step below contemptible -- unless, of course, the attitude is being adopted as a pose to stay visible in the mainstream. But as AY has pointed out several times now, it's obvious that this is exactly what Taylor is not doing. As of a year ago, his moderators allowed this corgi fellow to heap derision on the Irish and other Gentile groups while at the same time spiking AY's essay. If Taylor's only goal were gaining credibility with the mainsteam he would have disallowed corgi's comments as well as AY's comments. Basically, if Taylor were truly impartial on this issue, he would have disallowed any comments on his list not directly related to the subject of race and IQ.
So the anti-semitic complaint really is questionable. I'm not really sure the criticism that it did not violate forum rules is valid either. Although the rules really on criticism of jews is somewhat broad, in a similar way to this forum's rules on criticism of religion, i.e. the forum owners do not want their forum to be taken over and dominated by this.
Well then maybe Taylor should take up an issue on his mailing list where the Jewish Question is less relevant.
Perhaps you can suggest something.
Please give us an example of an issue that Nationalists and paleocons should regard as important but for which the Jewish question is not relevant.
I noticed you failed to respond when Franco challenged you on this point.
Well I would characterize this position really as the interpretation that really the jews are the problem in America, and wanting to discuss anything else for a nationalist is a diversion.
And that would be a gross mischaracterization if you're referring to me.
I never said discussing anything but Jews is a diversion, so there's no need to suggest that ââ¬â- unless attacking theadbare staw men is SOP for you.
Well, you're interpretation again. Seems like you've reneged on the "credit due" part. "Traitor" doesn't allow any.
Wrong again.
Many of the gentiles that fit the definition of traitors, enemies, or sell outs from a palecon/Nationalist perspective have done work that's useful for our side. David Horowtiz is great example. I suspect most of his here would with much of his commentary skewering post-modernism and Left Academia. At the same time, William F. Bucklely has written countless essays supporting Constitutionalism, opposing the modern state, and defending Catholicism and Western Civilization against various Leftist critiques.
But it should be obvious to anyone that Horowitz and Buckley are still very much our enemies even though they've both written things at one time or another that paleocons and Nationalists can agree with. Similarly, Jared Taylor has done work that many of us can agree with and that may be useful in winning people over to our side, but that doesn't mean he's not also a potential enemy.
In other words, Taylor writes things that are necessary, but not sufficient, to regard him as an ally to the paleocon/Nationalist cause.
And there's another interpretation that seems more factual. Not allowing for divergences in opinion from your own is totalitarian. And when opinions or lins of thought start getting associated with totalitarianism, they lose some of their legitimate right to participate in free discussion. That's the side AR had to consider when coming up with the rules.
"Totalitarianism" has no relevance on a privately owned and operated mailing list. We still have some property rights in this country, after all. This means that it's the mailing list owners that decide what does and doesn't constitute permissible opinion on mailing lists, not some nebulous "totalitarians."
Taylor is of course free to exclude any topic he wants on his list. It's his list after all. Let's remember that. He's the one who choose to exclude well reasoned AY-style commentary while at the same time allowing an obnoxious Jewish Supremacist to bash the Irish.
So don't throw out inflammatory words like "totalitarian" and try to turn things around on me and the other people here who are critical of Taylor when it was Taylor's decision -- and Taylor's alone -- to operate his mailing list based on a blatant double-standard.
Maybe you could elaborate here.
No need to; I think AY said it. The Randians turned what we now call paleo-libertarianism into the grotesque modern Libertarianism of the Libertarin Party. Abortion, prostitution, pornography, immigration, open borders, homosexual rights, and defending plutocratic economic interests are now the defining causes of the Libertarian movement.
The Lew Rockwell-style libertarians play second fiddle to them, if not third or fouth fiddle.
The only thing I would add to AY's observation about Randian influence is that it wasn't just the Randians that sent the Libertarian movement down a blind alley -- it was also the Rothbardians. And Rothbard, as everyone here knows I'm sure, was a Jew. No surprise there.
Rothbard and Rand's emphasis on extreme, atomistic individualism, anarchy, and natural rights has been incredibly influential among libertarians. I know; I used to be a natural rights libertarian myself (though a paleo).
It is largely because of Rand and Rothbard's influence that libertarians have strayed so far from their Jeffersonian roots.
So that's all there is, "the jewish question". And anyone who doesn't agree witgh you on this point is a traitor.
Never said it, so you're arguing against a straw man ââ¬â again.
Taylor = Horowitz and Buckley. This is too much like Francis = Foxman. Again I don't see credit here enough to buy a piece of gum.[/QUOTE]
Ridiculous.
Samuel Francis is nothing like Abe Foxman, so whoever said that was obviously dead wrong and too stupid for words, though the comment was not quite as stupid as your subborn insistence that there's no basis for speculating about parallels between Buckley and Taylor.
There probably isn't enough evidence at this point to say that Taylor is a race traitor on the same scale as William F. Buckley, George Will, or Cal Thomas, but the evidence is growing and the parallels are clearly there.
And other observers besides me have pointed them out. Repeatedly.
2004-05-22 22:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]OK, let's run through some of this.
A lot of things can be "viewed" as anti-semitic. Criticism of Israel can be viewed "anti-Semitic." Dramatizing Christ's last hours can be viewed as "anti-semitic." Pointing out that Marx, Boas, Kaganovitch, and the Frankfurt schoolers are Jews can be "viewed as anti-Semitic." That's one of our biggest obstacles. Anything Jews and their Gentile lackeys don't like can be viewed as "anti-Semitic," because it is the Jews themselves and their gentile lackeys that control discourse in America and set the boundaries of permissible dissent.
So is there anything that is anti-semitic? Was Hitler anti-semitic?
Sorry, but to me, that attitude is one step below contemptible -- unless, of course, the attitude is being adopted as a pose to stay visible in the mainstream. But as AY has pointed out several times now, it's obvious that this is exactly what Taylor is not doing. As of a year ago, his moderators allowed this corgi fellow to heap derision on the Irish and other Gentile groups while at the same time spiking AY's essay.
Feric disputes this interpretation. You just recycle the old opinions and prejudices, which you've never even examined, as inalterable fact. Objective observers would have good grounds to say you and your fellows either are blindly prejudice and also aren't very swift. Probably both.
[quote=Valley Forge]I never said discussing anything but Jews is a diversion, so there's no need to suggest that ââ¬â- unless attacking theadbare staw men is SOP for you.
No this is exactly what you said. Maybe the reason you think we don't understand what you wrote is you don't understand what you wrote, re:
[quote=Valley Forge]So I think the burden should be on Taylor at this point.
If he's not a traitor and if he is a genuine White Nationalist and not an IQ elitist, he needs to send a stong signal that shows he understands that the future of the White race is inextricably bound up with the Jewish question.
"Totalitarianism" has no relevance on a privately owned and operated mailing list. We still have some property rights in this country, after all. This means that it's the mailing list owners that decide what does and doesn't constitute permissible opinion on mailing lists, not some nebulous "totalitarians."
No need to; I think AY said it. The Randians turned what we now call paleo-libertarianism into the grotesque modern Libertarianism of the Libertarin Party. Abortion, prostitution, pornography, immigration, open borders, homosexual rights, and defending plutocratic economic interests are now the defining causes of the Libertarian movement.
The Lew Rockwell-style libertarians play second fiddle to them, if not third or fouth fiddle.
You didn't say a thing here about paleoconservatism. Actually that's what intrigued me when you said it. Rockwellites are just sort of a curiousity to me.
2004-05-22 22:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]So is there anything that is anti-semitic? Was Hitler anti-semitic?
Sure. How about "let's kill Jews. I hate Jews because they are Jews. Let's kill 'em all."
That would be an example of real anti-semitism.
Feric disputes this interpretation.
On the contrary, Feric doesn't dispute that letting corgi's material through while censoring AY's is indicative of a double-standard.
You just recycle the old opinions and prejudices, which you've never even examined, as inalterable fact. Objective observers would have good grounds to say you and your fellows either are blindly prejudice and also aren't very swift. Probably both.
Oh, what crud.
If Taylor's mods would have allowed AY's essay through, I wouldn't be criticizing the man. No one here would be.
So quit trying to suggest there's something wrong with me for criticizing his decision.
I asked Feric to repost AY's essay, and he politely declined. Probably because he is well aware it still wouldn't go through even now, a year later.
No this is exactly what you said. Maybe the reason you think we don't understand what you wrote is you don't understand what you wrote, re:
Go back up and reread.
You accused me of supporting the view that discussion of anything but Jews is a diversion. I never said that. That quote from me certainly doesn't say that. And it doesn't imply it either.
My position is that dealing with the Jewish Question is an issue of overriding importance for Nationalists. There is a huge difference between saying that and saying that the Jewish Question is the only issue of importance for Nationalists and discussion of anything else is a diversion.
Your straw men are so theadbare it's pathetic.
And by the way, do you disagree that the Jewish Question is an issue of overriding importance?
You didn't say a thing here about paleoconservatism. Actually that's what intrigued me when you said it. Rockwellites are just sort of a curiousity to me.[/QUOTE]
I didn't think it was necessary to say anything about paleoconservatism.
The role of Jews in subverting old school conservatism is well known, unlike the libertarian story.
2004-05-22 23:08 | User Profile
Was Hitler anti-semitic?
No, of course not.
Genuine, truly hateful anti-semitism is irrational.
Hitler's opinion of Jews was not irrational.
His opinion of Jews was formed based on his evaluation of Jewish actions and behaviors that have been observed and documented by some of the greatest minds the West has ever produced.
So no, Hitler was no more "anti-Semitic" than Kevin MacDonald is anti-Semitic.
2004-05-22 23:21 | User Profile
I am frankly shocked that some people in the [so-called] "White movement" suggest that 'the Jewish question' is merely part of the White man's problems. According to these various people, Jews are a problem just like Blacks and liberals. They are all equal problems.
Again I ask the very vital question: name a race or ethnic group besides Jews that dominates:**
Hollywood
The media
Most leftist groups
The homosexual-rights lobby
The anti-gun movement
Banking and finance
Wall Street
American foreign policy
Anti-racist/pro-minority groups
Let people tell me which other group besides Jews dominates those areas of American life, and I promise that I will never type the word "Jew" again.
I await detailed responses.
2004-05-22 23:21 | User Profile
Okie:
You didn't say a thing here about paleoconservatism. Actually that's what intrigued me when you said it. Rockwellites are just sort of a curiousity to me.
OK, I see what you mean now and why you found the comment intriguing. In the post you were referencing, I meant to allude to how Jews corrupted conservatism not contemporay paleoconservatism. Very sloppy wording on my part.
2004-05-22 23:24 | User Profile
Good questions, Franco.
It will be interesting to see whether anyone puts up.
2004-05-22 23:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]No, of course not.
Genuine, truly hateful anti-semitism is irrational.
Hitler's opinion of Jews was not irrational.
The definition of anti-semitism really has nothing to do with irrationality. Merriam webster defines it as
: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group
Therefore any blanket attack towards Judaism as a group may be considered, in a general sense, as an anti-semitic statement.
Not that I accept the Frankfurt School statement of anti-semitism as a perjorative expression for a form of irrationality, as is the general understanding of the term. There are various reasons for anti-semitism, as with otrher forms of prejudice, some irrational and some rational, as you note
His opinion of Jews was formed based on his evaluation of Jewish actions and behaviors that have been observed and documented by some of the greatest minds the West has ever produced.
So no, Hitler was no more "anti-Semitic" than Kevin MacDonald is anti-Semitic.[/QUOTE] Quote of the year. No I do not accept that Hitler's feelings toward the Jews were completely rational.
2004-05-23 00:12 | User Profile
The term "anti-semitism" as it is used in the media, academia, and in society generally clearly includes the idea that "hostility or discrimination" toward Jews is never rationally justified, or a result of Jewish behavior. The Merriam webster definition you quote glosses over this point.
Is AY's essay anti-semitic in the broad sense? Sure.
Does it evince some "hostility toward Jews." Not really, but that's how it would be interpreted by many people -- which, to restate my point, is a big part of the problem.
Now, let's look at Hitler. Was he anti-semitic? In the broad sense, absolutely.
But so what. The question is: was his anti-semitism justified rationally or was it totally irrational?
I really don't see how it could be considered irrational, because Hitler's "anti-semitism" was was based on observed Jewish behavior.
So this criticism of Hitler is really pretty specious.
2004-05-23 00:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]The term "anti-semitism" as it is used in the media, academia, and in society generally clearly includes the idea that "hostility or discrimination" toward Jews is never rationally justified, or a result of Jewish behavior. Like I said, the Frankfurt School/multiculturailst definition
Is AY's essay anti-semitic in the broad sense? Sure.
Does it evince some "hostility toward Jews." Not really, but that's how it would be interpreted by many people -- which, to restate my point, is a big part of the problem.
Well it certainly demonstrates distrust/fear of the jews, as a group, along with a basic demand that AR discriminateagainst/completely exclude them as a group, which in today's understanding, not just multiculturalist but generally including even us - is instinctively/viscerally considered a hostile act, although upon reflection we understand that the right of free association moderates it.
It is a very radical demand to be expressed overtly. It really isn't different in hardly any aspect than the one statement of the original NSDAP platform expressing anti-semitism as accepted today, that the jews were not to be considered part of the Reich, but were aliens.
To express this openly and in scarecely nuanced form is a very radical demand, however glibly, articulately, and precicesly you express it.
Now, let's look at Hitler. Was he anti-semitic? In the broad sense, absolutely.
But so what. The question is: was his anti-semitism justified rationally or was it totally irrational?
I really don't see how it could be considered irrational, because Hitler's "anti-semitism" was was based on observed Jewish behavior.
So this criticism of Hitler is really pretty specious.[/QUOTE]
I think almost everyone today that the links that Hitler & co went to to pursue anti-semitism, with elaborate pedigrees and racial studies determing and excluding down to 1/4 jewish blood, with decisions on the jew/aryan nature of soldiers often having to go to the fuehrer himself because of their extreme sensitivity, were indeed irrational.
But my point isn't to debate Hitler at length. If that's the way you really feel, we'll just haveto agree to disagree.
2004-05-23 01:30 | User Profile
[quote=okiereddust]Well [AY's essay] certainly demonstrates distrust/fear of the jews, as a group, along with a basic demand that AR discriminateagainst/completely exclude them as a group, which in today's understanding, not just multiculturalist but generally including even us - is instinctively/viscerally considered a hostile act, although upon reflection we understand that the right of free association moderates it.
It is a very radical demand to be expressed overtly. It really isn't different in hardly any aspect than the one statement of the original NSDAP platform expressing anti-semitism as accepted today, that the jews were not to be considered part of the Reich, but were aliens.
So, Okie, what is the conclusion you draw from this little piece of analysis?
That Taylor was justified in supressing AY's piece, because it is entirely consistent with how the term anti-semitism is understood today?
Surely that's not what you're suggesting, is it?
AY's call to exclude Jews was not some "radical" demand -- you said the reason why yourself: because "upon reflection we understand that the right of free association moderates it."
But my point isn't to debate Hitler at length. If that's the way you really feel, we'll just haveto agree to disagree.
Very well. We'll definitely have to agree to disagree if you believe, as you apparently do, that excluding Jews isn't rational.
Besides, you're probably right that this thread isn't place to arm wrestle over Hitler. But since you brought him up as an example of irrational anti-semitism consistent with the Frankfurt school understanding of anti-semitism, I felt obligated to respond and point out that this implication is unjustified based on the evidence.
2004-05-23 03:07 | User Profile
Yes -- I, too, want an answer to that general question/idea. In Okie's opinion, is it wrong to exclude Jews from an e-group, a mailing list or similar? Please be specific. What would Okie do if he controlled a nationalist group/magazine/website/mailing list re: the Jews?
2004-05-23 03:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Yes -- I, too, want an answer to that general question/idea. In Okie's opinion, is it wrong to exclude Jews from an e-group, a mailing list or similar? Please be specific. What would Okie do if he controlled a nationalist group/magazine/website/mailing list re: the Jews? -------[/QUOTE]I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I'm not sure any forum per se excludes people just because they may be partially of jewish descent. It certainly isn't in this forums rules, I doubt if its even in Stormfront's or VNN's rules.
We've had members of admitted jewish descent here. We all know who they are. George and Polichellino come to mind. Although you guys chased Poli off.
We don't know really know who's jewish anyway completely, and to be fair actually, I don't think a don't ask, don't tell policy would be fair. We'd haveto require proof of descent.
But I wouldn't do that for you Franco. Even if you may be jewish don't worry, you can still participate if I start a forum. :lol:
2004-05-23 03:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I'm not sure any forum per se excludes people just because they may be partially of jewish descent. It certainly isn't in this forums rules, I doubt if its even in Stormfront's or VNN's rules.
We've had members of admitted jewish descent here. We all know who they are. George and Polichellino come to mind. Although you guys chased Poli off.
We don't know really know who's jewish anyway completely, and to be fair actually, I don't think a don't ask, don't tell policy would be fair. We'd haveto require proof of descent.
But I wouldn't do that for you Franco. Even if you may be jewish don't worry, you can still participate if I start a forum. :lol:[/QUOTE]
That has to be one of the most evasive answers I've ever read on the Internet. Seriously. No disrespect intended.
So let me ask the relevant questions again in my own way:
1) Do you believe that European Whites are within their rights to exclude Jews from their organizations?
2) If you, Okiereddust, founded an above ground Nationalist organization -- say Oklamhoma Renaissance -- would you exclude Jews from your organiztation or invite their participation under some circumstances?
It would be helpful if you could answer yes or no to both questions before explaining your answer. Thanks.
2004-05-23 04:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]That has to be one of the most evasive answers I've ever read on the Internet. Seriously. No disrespect intended.
So let me ask the relevant questions again in my own way:
1) Do you believe that European Whites are within their rights to exclude Jews from their organizations?
2) If you, Okiereddust, founded an above ground Nationalist organization -- say Oklamhoma Renaissance -- would you exclude Jews from your organiztation or invite their participation under some circumstances?
It would be helpful if you could answer yes or no to both questions before explaining your answer. Thanks.[/QUOTE]
Hey this just started as a thread on American Renaissance excluding one of AY longer posts. Am I to be the only one interrogated?
If you're so interested in the subject start a separate thread on it. Phrase the question carefully. As background, you might also research what the written policy of other nationalist organizations, such as CoCC, KKK, Nat All., American Nationalist Union, VNN forum, Stormfront, David Duke's groups etc. is. Let's get everyone's input on this fascinating question you have just thought up to test our ideological purity.
Gosh it must be tough now that's there's no Trisk around to ask all the tough questionsand keep us from going soft.
2004-05-23 04:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Hey this just started as a thread on American Renaissance excluding one of AY longer posts. Am I to be the only one interrogated?
If you're so interested in the subject start a separate thread on it. Phrase the question carefully. As background, you might also research what the written policy of other nationalist organizations, such as CoCC, KKK, Nat All., American Nationalist Union, VNN forum, Stormfront, David Duke's groups etc. is. Let's get everyone's input on this fascinating question you have just thought up to test our ideological purity.
Gosh it must be tough now that's there's no Trisk around to ask all the tough questionsand keep us from going soft.[/QUOTE]
LOL.
Another non-response.
So now I'm testing your ideolgical purity?
Why would you say something so stupid?
Look, it's obvious to everyone that you want to avoid answering these questions for some reason. That's your right, of course, but I really don't see what the big deal is.
And before you accuse me of picking on you, let's remember that in your first response to me on this thread, you insulted me by accusing me of sounding like the proven liar and fraud Triseklion.
That's your SOP, as far as I can tell. You like to sneer at, poke, prod, insult, and tease people that don't agree with you all day, and now when Franco and I ask a couple of simple questions, you want to whine about ideological purity tests.
Look, I've got no problem saying pubically and without apology that White Europeans are perfectly within their rights to exclude Jews for any reason.
I've also got no problem with saying publically and without apology that if I started an above ground Nationalist organization, I would model Willaim Pierce and the NA and exclude Jews without hesitation, while also rejecting most of the rest of the NA's philosophy.
There. It wasn't very hard. Your turn.
2004-05-23 06:25 | User Profile
Yes, indeed. If I controlled a nationalist group or any group that advocated nationalist ideas, in any way, Jews would NOT be allowed. No way. Any person that had more than, say, 1/8 Jewish genes* would be banned. I do not care how "nice" or "friendly" the person might be.
*and even then I would be wary about that person.
[edited slightly]
2004-05-23 15:19 | User Profile
OD Members:
Having reviewed this discussion this morning, I would now like to urge everyone to carefully reread this thread, starting with the lead article, and ask youself whether you really want to associate yourself with Okiereddust's position in this debate over the value of Jared Taylor's ideas, American Renaissance, and the centrality of the Jewish Question in the pro-White movement.
Having copy/pasted Jared Taylor's essay into my word processor, it turns out that Taylor's speech runs about 4700 words.
The ostensible title of his speech is ââ¬ÅProspects for Our Movement.ââ¬Â By ââ¬Åour movement,ââ¬Â Taylor means the pro-White movement.
You would think, therefore, that since Taylor's topic is prospects for our movement, he would use some of those 4700 words to deal with the main roadblocks, impediments, and obstacles that stand in the way of moving ââ¬Åour movementââ¬Â forward.
Taylor observes, for example, that ââ¬Å[r]acial identity is simply forbidden to whites in America and across the entire Western world. Black children today are hammered with the idea of racial identity and pride, yet racial pride in whites constitutes a grave evil. Say ââ¬ÅI'm white and I'm proud and you are a Nazi.ââ¬Â
Obviously, that's true to anyone but a blind man. It's one of our main problems.
So you would think then, logically, that since the ostensible topic of the speech is ââ¬Åprospects for our movementââ¬Â examining the issue of WHY THAT IS THE CASE would be the next item on Taylor's agenda. Or, at the very least, you would think that if examining the issue of ââ¬Åwhy that is the caseââ¬Â is not the very next item on the agenda, it would be on Taylor's agenda somewhere.
So is this issue on Taylor's list?
Interestingly enough, it isn't. (Go back and carefully reread if you want to see for yourself.).
Examining the question of Why That Is The Case isn't on Taylor's agenda even though he boasts, misleadingly, about ââ¬Åtalking frankly and publicly about racial matters for more than 12 years.ââ¬Â
Now, I don't know about you, but I think that's a pretty damn conspicuous absence.
And let's not play games and beat around the bush with tortured, long-winded, hair-splitting responses about the importance of ââ¬Åstaying visibleââ¬Â and maintaining "respectablity" among people who hate us -- I think we all know very well by now the reason Jared Taylor doesn't want to ask the dreaded Why question: He's afraid that if talks about Jews and their influence on ââ¬Åour movementââ¬Â he'll lose his ââ¬Årespectabilityââ¬Â in the eyes of the mainstream. (Never mind for now that the mainstream doesn't give him any respect; we can leave that for another time.)
Now then, what does Okiereddust, one of OD's most prodigious posters, think about Taylor's decision? According to Okie, Taylor's essay represents:
ââ¬ÅMore inspiring words from the type of person and organization perfectly suited to lead a rival of western and european culture. And which I think would be a perfect receptacle for cooperation with the logical aims of this forum (My emphasis). [URL=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showpost.php?p=81567&postcount=2]Link[/URL]
So according to Okiereddust, an organization that avoids mentioning Jews is perfectly suited lead a rivival of western and European culture.
Right. If you believe that, I've got some used cars for sale.
In retrospect, it's obvious why Okie evaded my questions (and Franco's) about whether he would welcome Jews if ran a Nationalist outfit.
It's obvious why Okie resorted so quickly to stupid straw man arguments and school yard personal attacks against me (comparing me to the liar and fraud Triskelion, suggesting that I'm a totalitarian, telling the lie that I think discussing anything but Jews is a diversion; stating that I'm testing his ideological purity so as to associate me with totalitarianism, and so on).
Okie advocates working with Jews.
It's obvious.
And not only does Okieredust not deny that he thinks working with Jews is good idea, he thinks that an organization that avoids the Jewish question altogether is ââ¬Åideally suited to lead a revival of Western civilization.ââ¬Â
Even Texas Dissident, the person on this board who is probably most supportive of Okie's positions, doesn't go that far.
Tex says there's a middle ground between not naming the Jew and naming the Jew Linder style.
AY says there are good tactical reasons for not naming the Jew in public, but at the same time is rightly suspicious of Jewish motives. In addition, AY also believes that Whites shouldn't give Jews veto power over discussion of the Jewish question within our movement.
Feric Jager appears to be generally supportive of Jared Taylor but made it pretty clear that he disagrees with Taylor's overall approach on the Jewish issue.
And of course Franco and I have said explicitly that we would exclude Jews without apology.
Okie is the only one here unequivocally endorsing the Taylor appoach of avoiding the Jewish Question and welcoming Jews.
Yes, Taylor makes many good points in the above posted essay but he steers clear of what David Duke considers the most important issue of all: Jewish Surpremacist influence. And that makes his thinking fatally flawed and poison to our cause, whatever his other merits.
2004-05-23 15:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Yes, Taylor makes many good points in the above posted essay but he steers clear of what David Duke considers the most important issue of all: Jewish Surpremacist influence. And that makes his thinking fatally flawed and poison to our cause, whatever his other merits.[/QUOTE]
VF, you forgot the most important clause--in your opinion.
You ever thought to think that Jared Taylor just doesn't agree with you on that particular subject? Possible, no? Is our movement so strong that we can hold ideological inquisitions because some particular group or leader doesn't agree with us 100% on everything? I'm the sort that if someone says I have to believe this or that then I'm not going to out of spite.
2004-05-23 15:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]VF, you forgot the most important clause--in your opinion.
You ever thought to think that Jared Taylor just doesn't agree with you on that particular subject? Possible, no? Is our movement so strong that we can hold ideological inquisitions because some particular group or leader doesn't agree with us 100% on everything? I'm the sort that if someone says I have to believe this or that then I'm not going to out of spite.[/QUOTE]
Well of course. My name is on the post, so I thought it's evident that the comments I made are my opinion.
And I'm content to let others judge whether or not my opinion is justified.
I'm not trying to conduct some kind of idealogical inquistion here Tex. I'm really not.
Okie has been very critical of me and my ideas on this thread, accusing me of totalitarianism and other nastiness. If anyone is conducting an ideological witchhunt, it's him.
What do you think? Do you think an organization that welcomes Jews and avoids the Jewish Question is ideally suited to lead a revival of European civilization?
2004-05-23 15:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] I'm the sort that if someone says I have to believe this or that then I'm not going to out of spite.[/QUOTE]
Out of curiosity, where is anyone saying this?
2004-05-23 16:44 | User Profile
And while we're on the subject let's go over another point real quick for the sake of clarity:
[SIZE=4]Franco said this:[/SIZE]
In Okie's opinion, is it wrong to exclude Jews from an e-group, a mailing list or similar? Please be specific. What would Okie do if he controlled a nationalist group/magazine/website/mailing list re: the Jews?
[SIZE=4]Okie then said this:[/SIZE]
I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I'm not sure any forum per se excludes people just because they may be partially of jewish descent. It certainly isn't in this forums rules, I doubt if its even in Stormfront's or VNN's rules.
We've had members of admitted jewish descent here. We all know who they are. George and Polichellino come to mind. Although you guys chased Poli off.
We don't know really know who's jewish anyway completely, and to be fair actually, I don't think a don't ask, don't tell policy would be fair. We'd haveto require proof of descent.
But I wouldn't do that for you Franco. Even if you may be jewish don't worry, you can still participate if I start a forum
[SIZE=4]ValleyForge then said this:[/SIZE]
That has to be one of the most evasive answers I've ever read on the Internet. Seriously. No disrespect intended.
So let me ask the relevant questions again in my own way:
1) Do you believe that European Whites are within their rights to exclude Jews from their organizations?
2) If you, Okiereddust, founded an above ground Nationalist organization -- say Oklamhoma Renaissance -- would you exclude Jews from your organiztation or invite their participation under some circumstances?
It would be helpful if you could answer yes or no to both questions before explaining your answer. Thanks.
[SIZE=4]And Okie then said this:[/SIZE]
Hey this just started as a thread on American Renaissance excluding one of AY longer posts. Am I to be the only one interrogated?
Clearly implying, that I, ValleyForge, am conducting an ââ¬Åinterrogationââ¬Â by challenging his response and asking for a clarification of his position on an issue that we debate here all the time.
Is it just me, or is that just too stupid for words, or what?
Now then, I never thought I'd have to say this explicitly on a discussion forum like Original Dissent, but just to avoid absolutely any possibility whatsoever of being misunderstood about why I'm asked those questions, let me be as clear and direct as I can.
I'm not conducting an ideological ââ¬Åpurity test.ââ¬Â
I'm not conducting an ideological ââ¬Åinquistion.ââ¬Â
I'm not asking because I believe everyone is required to agree with me.
I'm not asking because I'm a ââ¬Åtotalitarian.ââ¬Â
I am asking simply because this is discussion form. As such, I am trying to find out another member's views on an important issue so as to ascertain whether we agree or disagree so that we can then have a basis for debating the relative merits of our positions.
That's all.
This is a discussion board after all, and that's only reason I'm asking.
So I sincerely hope that everyone here sees that this crap about inquistions, interrogations, and purity tests is just that ââ¬â a fresh load of stinking CRAP. :dung:
2004-05-23 16:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]I'm not trying to conduct some kind of idealogical inquistion here Tex. I'm really not.
Okie has been very critical of me and my ideas on this thread, accusing me of totalitarianism and other nastiness. If anyone is conducting an ideological witchhunt, it's him.
Yeah right. Let's see what you said.
It's obvious why Okie resorted so quickly to stupid straw man arguments and school yard personal attacks against me (comparing me to the liar and fraud Triskelion, suggesting that I'm a totalitarian, telling the lie that I think discussing anything but Jews is a diversion; stating that I'm testing his ideological purity so as to associate me with totalitarianism, and so on).
Okie advocates working with Jews.
It's obvious.
And not only does Okieredust not deny that he thinks working with Jews is good idea, he thinks that an organization that avoids the Jewish question altogether is ââ¬Åideally suited to lead a revival of Western civilization.ââ¬Â
Even Texas Dissident, the person on this board who is probably most supportive of Okie's positions, doesn't go that far.
What do you think? Do you think an organization that welcomes Jews and avoids the Jewish Question is ideally suited to lead a revival of European civilization?[/QUOTE]
So, for questioning the finality and absolute nature of your dismissal of Am.Ren. for not running AntiYuppie's essay and your general characterization of it as a "philosemitic organization", you have concluded that I am ipso facto a philosemite myself? And then you have silliness to deny you're on an ideological witchhunt, and claim you have right to get offended when I characterize your position as leaning towards totalitarianism and equivalent to Trisk's (if there is any difference between yours and Trisk's positions, I'd like to hear it.)
Of course I can understand your taking offense. After all you'd take offense if I called Hitler "totalitarian" too. Your logic is clear. You are not totalitarian, and are not on a witchhunt. If anyone says you are, you will expose them and anyone else who agrees with them as a agent of the Jews. Uh-huh.
Right. I'm not a violent totalitarian, and anyone who says openly says or even hints I am is a traitor to the cause and should, at least logically, be imprisoned or shot.
There is a certain logic why Am.Ren. gets nervous about ideas pointing to this conclusion, that National Socialist purity is the only legitimate nationalism, and anyone who denies this is a traitor. That is why people tend to exclude National Socialists and ideas closely associated with them. And you can't help simultaneously affirming them as you condemn them.
2004-05-23 17:33 | User Profile
Okie,
Your statement that you regard Taylor's approach as the "ideal" -- your word, not mine -- strongly suggests philosemitism, because Taylor operates as a philosemite (at least publically). Therefore, my observations were fair.
So instead of keeping us guessing, why don't you just tell us in your own words what you position is on working with Jews and bringing Jews into the pro-White movement? And while you're at it, tell us how you would run a prominent Nationalist organization?
Now, in repeating these question, I'm not trying to bait you, pin you down, or accuse you of being a traitor to the cause.
If you favor working with Jews under some circumstances, fine. Just say so -- and say what you see as the main advantages and what the limits would be.
Then we can resume discourse.
The only reason I'm asking -- the ONLY reason as I clearly stated above -- is to find out why you believe what you believe so we can then have a more meaningful debate on the issues.
Yet here you are again -- still spewing garbage about "violent totalitarians" and "imprisonments."
You're on the edge of really exposing yourself as fool.
2004-05-23 17:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Feric Jager appears to be generally supportive of Jared Taylor but made it pretty clear that he disagrees with Taylor's overall approach on the Jewish issue.[/QUOTE]
I confess to being a big tent racialist. I think that the most wicked of people can be of some use if they're saying the right things. If they later turn against me (against racialism) then I turn against them. If a Jewish guy says "Let's close the borders to Hispanics" I say "right on". If he says "let's start WWIII for Israel" I say "shut your mouth." It's as simple as that.
Is it possible that any organization that permits jews may one day be headed by a jew who'll turn the organization to the Tribe's interests? Yes. But that's also true of a goyim. (George W. Bush, anyone?) What's important is ideology. If one or two (or three or four) high positions in the BNP (etc.) are held by Semites, I say "so what". Just keep an eye on em. If the alternative is to have a less powerful, less effective BNP bogged down by tired mantras of 6 Million Murdered, then I say let's be pragmatic. We know who jews are and what they want, so I say let's use them but use them wisely.
If someone wants to achieve the goals of the 14 words but is uncomfortable with the Jewish Question, I would never say, "believe it or get out" rather I'd try to find out how that person can help from where they are. Maybe they're more comfortable with giving their time and money and energy to American Patrol or Ranch Rescue than to National Alliance or David Duke. I say fine. We are helped either way.
I also believe that turning the apolitical masses into racists is not a one step process. Eleven years ago I was at Vanderbilt University sucking down the liberal pap as fast as any of them (and they do loooove to serve it at Vandy). But a roommate was into Rush Limbaugh so I started listening. From there I signed up with the Conservative Book Club and bought Jared's Paved with Good Intentions. After that I started reading books from Roger Pearson's publishing house. Soon I was hashing it out at alt.nationalism.white, etc. etc. My point is not to be autobiographical but to show that racial awareness is a growth process and to that end even Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage and David Horowitz have their uses. I'm not blind to the "leaven of the Jews" but it took a while to get here. And every step was useful.
2004-05-23 18:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Feric Jaggar]Is it possible that any organization that permits jews may one day be headed by a jew who'll turn the organization to the Tribe's interests? Yes. But that's also true of a goyim. (George W. Bush, anyone?) What's important is ideology. If one or two (or three or four) high positions in the BNP (etc.) are held by Semites, I say "so what". Just keep an eye on em.If the alternative is to have a less powerful, less effective BNP bogged down by tired mantras of 6 Million Murdered, then I say let's be pragmatic. We know who jews are and what they want, so I say let's use them but use them wisely.
If someone wants to achieve the goals of the 14 words but is uncomfortable with the Jewish Question, I would never say, "believe it or get out" rather I'd try to find out how that person can help from where they are. Maybe they're more comfortable with giving their time and money and energy to American Patrol or Ranch Rescue than to National Alliance or David Duke. I say fine. We are helped either way.................
......My point is not to be autobiographical but to show that racial awareness is a growth process and to that end even Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage and David Horowitz have their uses. I'm not blind to the "leaven of the Jews" but it took a while to get here. And every step was useful.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like another person who [quote=Valley Forge]advocates working with Jews.
It's obvious.
and who [quote=Valley Forge]not only does not deny that he thinks working with Jews is good idea, he thinks that an organization that avoids the Jewish question altogether is ââ¬Åideally suited to lead a revival of Western civilization.ââ¬Â
2004-05-23 18:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Okie,
Your statement that you regard Taylor's approach as the "ideal" -- your word, not mine -- strongly suggests philosemitism, because Taylor operates as a philosemite (at least publically). Therefore, my observations were fair.
No, 1. Taylor's position in the essay. Not 2. Taylor's reputed position as reported by every little criticism (true or false, and most of them seem so far to be pretty much overstated) on every little thing he ever said in his life.
To equate 1 with 2, as a general practice is pretty much classic "T" tactics.
So instead of keeping us guessing, why don't you just tell us in your own words what you position is on working with Jews and bringing Jews into the pro-White movement? And while you're at it, tell us how you would run a prominent Nationalist organization?
Now, in repeating these question, I'm not trying to bait you, pin you down, or accuse you of being a traitor to the cause.
:lol:
2004-05-23 19:38 | User Profile
Ferric you make some good points. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I'm a big tent racialist too. Your position is basically my position: just about anyone can be probably useful for our cause as long as they're saying the right things. On the other hand though, as I keep pointing out, let's not forget that David Horowitz and William F. Buckley Jr. often say or have said the right things too. Both have written numerous polemical essays and books supporting Western Civilization and attacking Left Academia.
Is your racialist tent so big that it would include Horowitz and Buckely? After all, they're saying they the right things on some issues of importance to racialists. Remember, Horowitz wrote a whole book attacking the Hating Whitey mentality.
Now, I know you that in all likelihoodwouldn't include H and B in the racialist big tent -- my point is simply to express caution about the idea that "if someone is saying the right things, we should give them a pass and avoid confrontation on essential issues like the Jewish question.
Maybe there are few limited situations in which it makes sense to work with Jews. You cited a few examples yourself. At the same time though, you also said that it will be necessary to "keep an eye on them," lest they try to turn organiztion toward their own purposes, as they've done so many times in the past. You wouldn't have to worry about that if you just kept them out in the first place.
But, do you have any concrete evidence apart from your personal acquitance with the man that Taylor understands the need to be cautious when it comes to Jews? Not anecdotes, mind you, hard, public evidence?
Now then, it's obviously undeniable that like Buckely and Horowitz Taylor and AmRen have done some work that has value for our side. Maybe avoiding the Jewish question and criticism of Jews is part of some BNP-style strategy designed to garner support. All this talk about Jews does sound pretty nutty to most people, after all. Also, as you point out, the BNP seems to be getting some mileage out of this tactic. So who knows, maybe that's what Taylor is up to.
On the other hand, there is a very important difference between AmRen and the BNP. The BNP is rising to prominence in a context where there is no parallel so far as I know to the American experience where authentic conservatism was mutated into neoconservatism via Jewish influence.
That's not true on our side of the pond, and that is why I think we need to hold Taylor's feet to the fire on this issue.
[QUOTE=Feric Jaggar]I confess to being a big tent racialist. I think that the most wicked of people can be of some use if they're saying the right things. If they later turn against me (against racialism) then I turn against them. If a Jewish guy says "Let's close the borders to Hispanics" I say "right on". If he says "let's start WWIII for Israel" I say "shut your mouth." It's as simple as that.
Is it possible that any organization that permits jews may one day be headed by a jew who'll turn the organization to the Tribe's interests? Yes. But that's also true of a goyim. (George W. Bush, anyone?) What's important is ideology. If one or two (or three or four) high positions in the BNP (etc.) are held by Semites, I say "so what". Just keep an eye on em. If the alternative is to have a less powerful, less effective BNP bogged down by tired mantras of 6 Million Murdered, then I say let's be pragmatic. We know who jews are and what they want, so I say let's use them but use them wisely.
If someone wants to achieve the goals of the 14 words but is uncomfortable with the Jewish Question, I would never say, "believe it or get out" rather I'd try to find out how that person can help from where they are. Maybe they're more comfortable with giving their time and money and energy to American Patrol or Ranch Rescue than to National Alliance or David Duke. I say fine. We are helped either way.
I also believe that turning the apolitical masses into racists is not a one step process. Eleven years ago I was at Vanderbilt University sucking down the liberal pap as fast as any of them (and they do loooove to serve it at Vandy). But a roommate was into Rush Limbaugh so I started listening. From there I signed up with the Conservative Book Club and bought Jared's Paved with Good Intentions. After that I started reading books from Roger Pearson's publishing house. Soon I was hashing it out at alt.nationalism.white, etc. etc. My point is not to be autobiographical but to show that racial awareness is a growth process and to that end even Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage and David Horowitz have their uses. I'm not blind to the "leaven of the Jews" but it took a while to get here. And every step was useful.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-23 19:47 | User Profile
Okie,
It's questionable whether the BNP's apparent embrace of Jews is evidence that an American Nationalist movement can be successful while embracing Jews.
To say it one more time, the BNP is operating in a different context.
In Britian, there is no history of Jews corrupting populist movements.
So this really isn't very good counter-evidence to my position, which is that in America Jews should be excluded from Nationalist movements on the basis of past experience with Jewish subversion.
2004-05-23 20:00 | User Profile
Typical Okiereddust.
Here's another example.
Let's look at it.
[SIZE=4]I ask Okie this:[/SIZE]
So instead of keeping us guessing, why don't you just tell us in your own words what you position is on working with Jews and bringing Jews into the pro-White movement? And while you're at it, tell us how you would run a prominent Nationalist organization?
Now, in repeating these question, I'm not trying to bait you, pin you down, or accuse you of being a traitor to the cause.
[SIZE=4]And Okie responds with this:[/SIZE]
:lol:[/QUOTE]
Basically ducking the relevant questions for the fourth time in a row while implying that my motive for asking these questions is really something other than my publically stated motive.
Hey Okie, since you apparently want to reduce this discussion to the level of the schoolyard -- why don't you tell us, oh amazing Kreskin, how it is that you're so sure my motive for asking these questions is something other than what I say it is that you're comfortable attacking my ideas and associating me with totalitarianism while also using ridicule to duck simple questions that challenge your position in reponse?
2004-05-23 20:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Is your racialist tent so big that it would include Horowitz and Buckely? After all, they're saying they the right things on some issues of importance to racialists. Remember, Horowitz wrote a whole book attacking the Hating Whitey mentality.
Now, I know you that in all likelihoodwouldn't include H and B in the racialist big tent -- my point is simply to express caution about the idea that "if someone is saying the right things, we should give them a pass and avoid confrontation on essential issues like the Jewish question. [/QUOTE]
If bringing up the Jewish question in a certain case or situation is not going to help or convince or promote, then I say "hold off" and wait. But if the time is right and minds are open, then by all means go for it. And no Horowitz and Buckley are not racialists by my lights. I do admire Horowitz for getting in people's faces about the racial double standard issue. He's not afraid to take it to the colleges and universities and let 'em have it. He's got guts. But when he starts blabbing about the War on Terror then it's time to move on. On the other hand, it's hard to find much lingering respect for WFBuckley. He seems to have lost all the guts he once had and has traded it all for good seats at the theater, stimulating conversation with people of "import" and other highlights of good society. It's sad to see older liberals like Byrd and Hollings sticking up for Western society and putting their necks on the line while Buckley has never met a shoe-shine boy he didn't like.
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]But, do you have any concrete evidence apart from your personal acquitance with the man that Taylor understands the need to be cautious when it comes to Jews? Not anecdotes, mind you, hard, public evidence?[/QUOTE]
AmRen is what it is. It is not an organization, as JT will tell you, but a publication. There is no membership that someone can sign up for. It will not change its focus unless JT changes his focus. It will never be taken over by Jews. But, to your point, will it caution others about the dangers of the Semites? Timidly, I would say. AmRen ran a review of Dr. MacDonald's Culture of Critique where the various truths about Jews were printed out for all to see. That's great. JT didn't have to do that. But he also allowed equal time for rebuttal. He's also let Horowitz have it for his double standard on Israel for Jews but America for everyone.
And I will admit that most of my impressions of my knowledge of Jared and the Jews comes from personal contact, emails, conversations with the man and have little in the way of hard reprintable evidence. You are under no obligation to believe me, you've got me there. I do give him kudos for having Joe Sobran headline the '04 Conference (and Joe did speak out about the Jews). JT knows Joe and what he was going to talk about and allowed it.
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Now then, it's obviously undeniable that like Buckely and Horowitz Taylor and AmRen have done some work that has value for our side. Maybe avoiding the Jewish question and criticism of Jews is part of some BNP-style strategy designed to garner support. All this talk about Jews does sound pretty nutty to most people, after all. Also, as you point out, the BNP seems to be getting some mileage out of this tactic. So who knows, maybe that's what Taylor is up to.[/QUOTE]
I would say that's exactly what Taylor is up to. I would also encourange you to make it to the 2006 ARConf. It's a very eclectic group. At the last Conference I got to meet Kevin Strom, Don Black, and converse with David Pringle . I had dinner with Yggdrasil and met a great many of the racialist right's who's who.
2004-05-23 20:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Feric Jaggar]You are under no obligation to believe me, you've got me there.[/QUOTE]
I don't want to give you the impression that I don't believe you. I do. I've actually heard stories like yours before from people personally acquainted with Taylor. The "word on the street," if you will, seems to be that JT understands Jews, but for whatever reason has chosen not to focus on that issue with AmRen.
That's somewhat reassuring, but it doesn't change the fact that these anecdotes need to be weighed against JT's public stances (avoiding the Jewish Question in a major speech on White prospects, censoring AY's essay while allowing commentary from a supremacist Jew, telling NA members to start their own conference if they want to discuss Jews, etc.)
If you're right that JT's decision is just a strategy and not a conscious descision to steer the WN movement away from Jewish issues, then that would change the picture -- and my assessment of the man as a rank and file WN.
2004-05-23 22:23 | User Profile
Tex wrote:
VF, you forgot the most important clause--in your opinion.
You mean, Jews dominating 90% of America's culture [a documented fact] is merely an opinion? Just an opinion? Really? Wow....then I've been reading all the wrong books for the past 4 years. Please set me straight, Tex. Which books should I read to find out about 'who dominates American culture?'
[edited]
2004-05-24 00:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Okie,
It's questionable whether the BNP's apparent embrace of Jews is evidence that an American Nationalist movement can be successful while embracing Jews.
To say it one more time, the BNP is operating in a different context.
In Britian, there is no history of Jews corrupting populist movements.
So this really isn't very good counter-evidence to my position, which is that in America Jews should be excluded from Nationalist movements on the basis of past experience with Jewish subversion.[/QUOTE]
One thing that always strikes me in conversations like this, when we get involved in foreign countries, is how much more tolerant you are of the situation in foreign countries than in America. "Trisk" was that way when I tried to determine why he was so negative on Buchanan while at the same time supporting the Populist Party (whatever it was called) in Denmark. Now it seems to me you're the same way with the BNP.
Here you won't allow even a lowly little dues paying member, while in Britain it doesn't bother you when apparently several jews are in prominent positions.
Just instinctively, and buttressed with some personal experience, it would seem to me that a complete ban on membership is a bit excessive, and will bring bad publicity to the organization, without any real corresponding benefit. However it certainly would seem to me to be a cause for concern when party leadership starts to be filled by jews, and it seems to be naive to think that this won't affect the party's position, say on matters in the middle east, in some way.
Also I really don't see the lack of a history of jews influencing populist movements in Britain. I remember reading something quite prominent about the influence jewish groups had had on the Conservative Party. The Labour Party of course goes without saying. (re: its long time open immigration stance).
I hope this partially answers addresses your question. Maybe you could address the issue of this disconnect between foreign and domestic nationalist policy for me.
2004-05-24 00:45 | User Profile
Actually, Okie, I admit you have a fair point here. (And I'm not just saying that to avoid the VF=Trisk charge. Remember, when you hit me with that, I really have no idea what you're talking about, because I didn't follow the details of your exchanges with T.)
If you, Feric, or someone else can show 1) that in Europe a populist movement in country X was subverted by Jews, and 2) that despite this history of subversion the Nationalists in country X are still allowing Jews to have a say in running things, and 3) are still achieving their goals despite a Jewish presence -- then yes, I admit, that would be a legitimate counterexample to my contention that Jews should always be excluded.
But, one counter example isn't very impressive, because there are always exceptions to any rule, and there is no way to know whether the goals would have been achieved anyway even if Jews were excluded.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]One thing that always strikes me in conversations like this, when we get involved in foreign countries, is how much more tolerant you are of the situation in foreign countries than in America. "Trisk" was that way when I tried to determine why he was so negative on Buchanan while at the same time supporting the Populist Party (whatever it was called) in Denmark. Now it seems to me you're the same way with the BNP.
Here you won't allow even a lowly little dues paying member, while in Britain it doesn't bother you when apparently several jews are in prominent positions.
Just instinctively, and buttressed with some personal experience, it would seem to me that a complete ban on membership is a bit excessive, and will bring bad publicity to the organization, without any real corresponding benefit. However it certainly would seem to me to be a cause for concern when party leadership starts to be filled by jews, and it seems to be naive to think that this won't affect the party's position, say on matters in the middle east, in some way.
Also I really don't see the lack of a history of jews influencing populist movements in Britain. I remember reading something quite prominent about the influence jewish groups had had on the Conservative Party. The Labour Party of course goes without saying. (re: its long time open immigration stance).
I hope this partially answers addresses your question. Maybe you could address the issue of this disconnect between foreign and domestic nationalist policy for me.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-24 01:01 | User Profile
Just instinctively, and buttressed with some personal experience, it would seem to me that a complete ban on membership is a bit excessive, and will bring bad publicity to the organization, without any real corresponding benefit.
I've heard all I need to hear.
Okie -- are you more concerned about publicity or race?
without any real corresponding benefit.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? TELL ME.
2004-05-24 01:06 | User Profile
[Quote] Just instinctively, and buttressed with some personal experience, it would seem to me that a complete ban on membership is a bit excessive, and will bring bad publicity to the organization, without any real corresponding benefit.
Okie --
Are Jews White? [Answer: no]. Then why allow them into a pro-White group or forum? Answer in detail, please.
2004-05-24 01:14 | User Profile
Not only that Franco, but there's another reason we should be skeptical that the BNP experience "proves" that Nationalists can achieve success while embracing Jews. Another, more radical Nationalist group in Britain is charging that the BNP is selling out to the establishment, and that the BNP is backtracking on key issues like repatriating non-Whites from Britain.
So, one naturally needs to ask, could this "watering down" and of the BNP's positions on issues like repatriation be due to the influence of Jews and Gentile opportunits?
Here is what the Britian's White Nationalist Party has to say:
The purpose of this site is to have ready a mirror site and a Movement in readiness - the White Nationalist Party - to represent the interests of the ultra Nationalists of Great Britain. With the advent of "Populism" into the edges of the mainstream of British politics, there are many of us who refuse to compromise our principles and strategy.
The White Nationalist Party has many adherents and from May 17th 2002 we are encouraging membership. Why? [SIZE=3]Because the leadership of all the Nationalists in the United Kingdom will remain for a good period of time in the hands of outright opportunists WITH NO INTEREST IN WHAT WE BELIEVE IN apart from what they can draw in cash and as a safety valve for the ZOG State, [/SIZE]then the need for a Movement such as the WNP is now a drastic necessity.
We welcome memberships from all those who believe in the traditional values of Racial Nationalism and a card and letter of welcome will be issued.
[url]http://www.white.org.uk/purpose.html[/url]
I like these guys -- no compromise. That's the way to go.
[QUOTE=Franco]I've heard all I need to hear.
Okie -- are you more concerned about publicity or race?
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? TELL ME.
-------------[/QUOTE]
2004-05-24 01:21 | User Profile
Just instinctively, and buttressed with some personal experience, it would seem to me that a complete ban on membership is a bit excessive, and will bring bad publicity to the organization, without any real corresponding benefit.
I've been pondering this quote and I can say that I have never read anything quite like it at OD. I would like Okie to explain it in detail.
And I must ask: Okie -- have you read Dr. KMacD?
[edited]
2004-05-24 02:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]I've been pondering this quote and I can say that I have never read anything quite like it at OD. I would like Okie to explain it in detail.
And I must ask: Okie -- have you read Dr. KMacD? [edited]
-----------[/QUOTE]
Yes. Have you? And I don't mean from "Old MacDonald had a farm"
2004-05-24 02:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Okie --
Are Jews White? [Answer: no]. Then why allow them into a pro-White group or forum? Answer in detail, please.
----------[/QUOTE]I don't see the logic. Whites can join the NAACP or ADL can't they? (Not to get into the history of the NAACP :lol:)
2004-05-24 02:59 | User Profile
I don't see the logic. Whites can join the NAACP or ADL can't they? (Not to get into the history of the NAACP
Okie --
Please answer the questions that I posed about Jews joining White causes.
2004-05-24 03:04 | User Profile
Yes. Have you? And I don't mean from "Old MacDonald had a farm"
I could say something here, really......but out of respect for Tex, I won't.
2004-05-24 22:14 | User Profile
Actually Franco, Okie answered the question pretty clearly a few posts up.
Okiereddust supports working with Jews to avoid negative publicity.
In his own complex style, he said it right here.
[quote=Okiereddust]Just instinctively, and buttressed with some personal experience, it would seem to me that a complete ban on membership is a bit excessive, and will bring bad publicity to the organization, without any real corresponding benefit. However it certainly would seem to me to be a cause for concern when party leadership starts to be filled by jews, and it seems to be naive to think that this won't affect the party's position, say on matters in the middle east, in some way.
Translation: "Yes, I support working with Jews, and I wouldn't be too concerned unless Jews began to taking on too many leadership roles."
Okie, if you think this paraphrase of your position is accurate, my question for you is: well, if you support allowing Jews into the Nationalist party/org in the first place, what the heck can you do about once they begin to move into leadership positions?
It seems that the party would be trapped into considering the "Jewish view" when making policy no?
It seems that you would really have no choice but to consider the Jewish view. The only alternative is exclusion, which you vehemently oppose.
After all, "it would seem to me that a complete ban on membership is a bit excessive."
And if the paraphrase is not accurate, please elaborate on how.
[QUOTE=Franco]Okie --
Please answer the questions that I posed about Jews joining White causes.
-----------[/QUOTE]
2004-05-24 22:29 | User Profile
Tex, Are you out there?
I couldn't help but notice you failed to respond to Franco's rebuttal when you characterized my comments as "just another opinion."
Are we to assume that Franco is correct, and that Jewish domination of American culture is a fact and not an opinion and that therefore there are compelling reasons to be suspicious of Jared Taylor for not excluding Jews?
[SIZE=4][B]Valley Forge said this:[/B][/SIZE]
Franco and I have said explicitly that we would exclude Jews without apology.
Okie is the only one here unequivocally endorsing the Taylor appoach of avoiding the Jewish Question and welcoming Jews.
Yes, Taylor makes many good points in the above posted essay but he steers clear of what David Duke considers the most important issue of all: Jewish Surpremacist influence. And that makes his thinking fatally flawed and poison to our cause, whatever his other merits.
[B][SIZE=4]Texas Dissident then said this[/SIZE]:[/B]
VF, you forgot the most important clause--in your opinion.
[SIZE=4][B]Franco then said this:[/B][/SIZE]
You mean, Jews dominating 90% of America's culture [a documented fact] is merely an opinion? Just an opinion? Really? Wow....then I've been reading all the wrong books for the past 4 years. Please set me straight, Tex. Which books should I read to find out about 'who dominates American culture?'
And Tex failed to respond.
2004-05-24 22:40 | User Profile
**Okie --
Please answer the questions that I have asked you, re: Jews. I think I have asked twice already. If you have answered them already, please direct me to that post.**
2004-05-24 22:47 | User Profile
I really like the way VF stays on point. Again and again, he gets to the nugget of the matter. Every situation has a ROOT, and he knows it.
We must all pay attention to detail re: nationalist issues.
2004-05-24 22:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Okie, if you think this paraphrase of your position is accurate, my question for you is: well, if you support allowing Jews into the Nationalist party/org in the first place, what the heck can you do about once they begin to move into leadership positions?
Serious question: Is it even legal under current US law to deny membership in a political party on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion?
If it isn't legal (and I suspect it's not, but I could be wrong), then this debate seems moot for any above-board political party.
Leadership positions...well, that's probably another matter entirely. And I doubt a party with planks polar opposite Zionist goals would attract many Jews, but who knows.
2004-05-24 22:52 | User Profile
Centinel --
I think that only applies to public accomodations [and jobs, restaurants, etc.].
2004-05-24 22:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]Serious question: Is it even legal under current US law to deny membership in a political party on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion?
If it isn't legal (and I suspect it's not, but I could be wrong), then this debate seems moot for any above-board political party.
Leadership positions...well, that's probably another matter entirely. And I doubt a party with planks polar opposite Zionist goals would attract many Jews, but who knows.[/QUOTE]
This is a good point.
But I suspect a WN org could get around this problem the same way the ADL does.
As Okie pointed out, the ADL doesn't exclude non-Jews.
That is, they don't do it explicitly.
But don't expect to see a White Gentile leading the ADL any time soon.
2004-05-24 23:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]J So if AmRen were to do with its Jewish members what Judaism does to its gentile converts (i.e. keep them in line playing second fiddle), that would be fine for political purposes.[/QUOTE] The trick would be keeping them in line. As Washington said about government, "It is a fearful servant, and a dangerous master." That sentiment is apropos here, as well.
2004-05-24 23:54 | User Profile
AY, your writings sparkle like diamonds.
This point about "cohesiveness" pretty much seals the deal.
Europe is an entirely different context. If the BNP, National Front, etc. are working with Jews, it really has no relevance on this side of the pond.
So, once again, we must ask: what does JT expect to accomplish by working with Jews? He must know their only interest is subversion, not assimilation.
Yet he continues to work with the Rabbi and others.
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]AmRen, and American "white nationalism" in general, lacks a sufficient internal cohesion to make sure that this is the case. The Jews who join these movements have no interest in assimilating, their goal is to subvert the movements and make them serve Jewish interests - and they do so successfully precisely because American nationalism is NOT internally cohesive. The reason that the French and British Right can have some Jewish members without being subverted is simply due to the fact that they have a much stronger sense of being French or English than the American Right has of being white Americans (plus the fact that Jews are more organized and powerful in the US than anywhere else save Israel).[/QUOTE]
2004-05-25 00:23 | User Profile
and inviting the Talmud scholar Rabbi Meyer Schiller as a keynote speaker at AmRen conferences.
!!!!
2004-05-25 00:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Yet he continues to work with the Rabbi and others.[/QUOTE]
Continues to work with the Rabbi?? Let's see, there was that time a decade ago and then...ummm...well...and more recently there was...ummm...
2004-05-25 00:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Feric Jaggar]Continues to work with the Rabbi?? Let's see, there was that time a decade ago and then...ummm...well...and more recently there was...ummm...[/QUOTE]
Feric,
Don't you think it would be wise to hold JT's feet to the fire on this issue?
Look at his 2004 speech for example.
His ostensible title is prospects for our movement.
And in 4700 words, he never mentions the main roadblock, impediment, and obstacle to our movement in America: Jewish influence.
In all honestly, don't you find that omission glaring?
2004-05-25 00:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Actually Franco, Okie answered the question pretty clearly a few posts up.
Okiereddust supports working with Jews to avoid negative publicity.
In his own complex style, he said it right here.
Translation: "Yes, I support working with Jews, and I wouldn't be too concerned unless Jews began to taking on too many leadership roles."
Okie, if you think this paraphrase of your position is accurate, my question for you is: well, if you support allowing Jews into the Nationalist party/org in the first place, what the heck can you do about once they begin to move into leadership positions?
It seems that the party would be trapped into considering the "Jewish view" when making policy no?..........
And if the paraphrase is not accurate, please elaborate on how.[/QUOTE]
Seems to me you answered the question yourself.
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]This is a good point.
But I suspect a WN org could get around this problem the same way the ADL does.
As Okie pointed out, the ADL doesn't exclude non-Jews.
That is, they don't do it explicitly.
But don't expect to see a White Gentile leading the ADL any time soon.[/QUOTE]
Very good.
2004-05-25 00:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Feric,
Don't you think it would be wise to hold JT's feet to the fire on this issue?
Look at his 2004 speech for example.
His ostensible title is prospects for our movement.
And in 4700 words, he never mentions the main roadblock, impediment, and obstacle to our movement in America: Jewish influence.
In all honestly, don't you find that omission glaring?[/QUOTE]
In all honesty, he thinks he can reach more people without doing the Jew-dance. He may be dead wrong. But I don't have a problem with him trying.
2004-05-25 00:56 | User Profile
You know, it also occured to me -- and this is a point for JT's strategy -- that if he can convince a lot of people to become racially aware because he avoids the Jewish question, our side may not really lose that much.
Most, if not all, of those people will eventually be exposed to the Jewish question anyway via the Internet.
Once people become pro-White, they will naturally look for answers explaining our current predicament.
[QUOTE=Feric Jaggar]In all honesty, he thinks he can reach more people without doing the Jew-dance. He may be dead wrong. But I don't have a problem with him trying.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-25 01:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Tex, Are you out there?
Just say my name three times and I will appear. :) Seriously, weekends are busy for me and this last one was no exception i.e. nephew's b-day party, church, sunday dinner at mother-in-law's, etc... My apologies.
I couldn't help but notice you failed to respond to Franco's rebuttal when you characterized my comments as "just another opinion."
Generally, I just scroll through "Franco's" posts. Once you've read one, you've pretty much read them all.
Are we to assume that Franco is correct, and that Jewish domination of American culture is a fact and not an opinion and that therefore there are compelling reasons to be suspicious of Jared Taylor for not excluding Jews?
There is no doubt that jewish influence permeates our culture and government. Kevin MacDonald opened my eyes on that subject years ago with 'Culture of Critique.' But unlike many strict racialists here and elsewhere (who, like jews in American culture, have a grossly disproportionate influence on the internet and in venues like this one), I believe said jewish influence is a symptom of the disease affecting America and not the root cause. Ours is a spiritual crisis and if it were not atheistic (marxist?) jews taking advantage of our present weakness then it would be some other group.
Therefore, a narrow focus of 'name the jew' is tragically short-sighted, simplistic and will not serve our people in any real, practical sense over the long term. Should it be something we are wary of and keep at the forefront of our minds? Sure. Should it be something we divide over and further fractionalize this struggling nationalist movement in its infancy? No, I don't think so. The handful of keyboard warriors that try to make 'naming the jew' the line in the sand are a severe detriment to organization, coalition-building and real-world gains.
As I stated previously, AmRen/Jared Taylor is what it is and one either accepts that or they don't. You may not agree with his particular approach in one area, but there's a diplomatic, civilized way to disagree and it isn't to publish diatribes denouncing him or his group because they don't toe one's own ideological line. This is politics, not theology. Take what you can, advance and move forward. I would be highly suspicious of anyone who states that Jared Taylor or American Renaissance is an enemy of nationalism/true conservatism on the par with the ADL or ACLU. But that's my opinion and not worth much in the greater scheme of things. If naming the jew and strict racialism is one's main cause, then by all means they should pursue it and chase their dream. I just wish they would leave the rest of us who have families, the future and real world in mind alone sometimes.
2004-05-25 01:25 | User Profile
Generally, I just scroll through "Franco's" posts.
Why the quotation marks, Tex? I've never seen that from you before. You have some doubts about Uncle Franco, eh? Then by all means, let's hear them.
[edited]
2004-05-25 01:26 | User Profile
Franco, you have to submit for an ip check, Sir. Step over here and hand over you keyboard.
2004-05-25 01:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]As I stated previously, AmRen/Jared Taylor is what it is and one either accepts that or they don't. You may not agree with his particular approach in one area, but there's a diplomatic, civilized way to disagree and it isn't to publish diatribes denouncing him or his group because they don't toe one's own ideological line.
Well, I agree with you on this point. I don't expect anyone to tow my ideological line on anything, so nobody better expect me to tow their's -- or there will be trouble. :gunsmilie
I would be highly suspicious of anyone who states that Jared Taylor or American Renaissance is an enemy of nationalism/true conservatism on the par with the ADL or ACLU. [/QUOTE]
Well, again, we agree.
I probably went too far in using the word "traitor" in connection with Taylor without clearer evidence that selling out the cause is what he's actually up to, as opposed to just playing smart politics knowing that anyone he wins over will find out about Jews soon enough anyway. The word traitor is probably much too strong, upon reflection.
That word probably should be reserved for people who work for ADL/ACLU/neocon establishment.
2004-05-25 01:44 | User Profile
Franco, you have to submit for an ip check, Sir. Step over here and hand over you keyboard.
That's far funnier and far more ironic than you realize....
2004-05-25 06:40 | User Profile
Tex wrote:
I believe said jewish influence is a symptom of the disease affecting America and not the root cause. Ours is a spiritual crisis
Well, I do not want to sound like a know-it-all, but I can easily counter that idea.
Example: Jews [organized Jewry] got both Father Coughlin and Gerald L.K. Smith silenced from radio, speaking engagements, interviews, etc. via their enormous influence and power. I know that to be a cold, hard fact. Can Tex kindly tell me how 'a spiritual crisis' among gentiles has anything to do with that? Ditto Jewish media domination, Hollywood domination, domination of leftist causes, etc. You see?
I suggest that ODers pay more attention to my posts. My posts are not simply endless Hitlerisms. I have been in the WN 'game' for quite a while.
2004-05-25 07:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Well, I agree with you on this point. I don't expect anyone to tow my ideological line on anything, so nobody better expect me to tow their's -- or there will be trouble. :gunsmilie
Well, again, we agree.
I probably went too far in using the word "traitor" in connection with Taylor without clearer evidence that selling out the cause is what he's actually up to, as opposed to just playing smart politics knowing that anyone he wins over will find out about Jews soon enough anyway. The word traitor is probably much too strong, upon reflection.
That word probably should be reserved for people who work for ADL/ACLU/neocon establishment.[/QUOTE] Yes it is too strong. Glad you've dropped this Triskism for now. It is these little casual habits of borrowing the strongest language from people like Trisk, which as I've noted have many negative consequences.
When hardcore types keep demanding that the strongest possible perjorative language be used when referring to differing factions in the nationalist movement which keeps the nationalist movement divided, able to do nothing more than argue over historical and ideological matters in remote corners of the internet. Having seen the sinister origins of the language and attitudes of people like Trisk, and the harm they do, one would think one should do ones best to search for them and to root them out.
It is becoming evident to me how, like so much of the white nationalist movement, much of the leadership slogans and attitudes we see in the WN movement actually originate from conscious and dedicated agent provocetuers. When one, even from innocence, imitates or copies their tactics, even out of just habit or subconscious suggestion, one in a sense becomes an unconsious agent provocetuer
Not that I mean to be overly critical. But in the wake of the Trisk incident, I realy think we need to take a hard look at where many of our attitudes and habits come from.
2004-05-25 07:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Just say my name three times and I will appear. :) Seriously, weekends are busy for me and this last one was no exception i.e. nephew's b-day party, church, sunday dinner at mother-in-law's, etc... My apologies.
Generally, I just scroll through "Franco's" posts. Once you've read one, you've pretty much read them all.
Yes, basically the imitate the constant repition of themes that Goebbels used for the lowest levels of society to be propogandized. Substantively, its a fraud.
There is no doubt that jewish influence permeates our culture and government. Kevin MacDonald opened my eyes on that subject years ago with 'Culture of Critique.' But unlike many strict racialists here and elsewhere (who, like jews in American culture, have a grossly disproportionate influence on the internet and in venues like this one), I believe said jewish influence is a symptom of the disease affecting America and not the root cause. Ours is a spiritual crisis and if it were not atheistic (marxist?) jews taking advantage of our present weakness then it would be some other group.
I think this illustrates one of the reasons Am.Ren. tends to use great caution in bringing up "the Jewish Question". Clearly it is a problem of real complexity, existing on several levels. To bring it up prematurely, without proper caution, and without understanding of its ramifications will cause a great deal of harm.
Even very intelligent and nuanced readers can fall for this trap. This own thread is a perfect example, how AntiYuppies original post, which really just warned about the dangers of a domination of the movement equivalent to what the neocons did to conservatism, evolved in the understanding of many into a demand for Nuremburg style race laws throughout the nationalist movement.
If we can't handle it will, imagine how much difficulty Am.Ren. might have. Though its a difficult and sensitive topic, it very badly needs to be addressed. But its a difficult task, something obviously evemn forum like this have a great deal accomplishing.
Therefore, a narrow focus of 'name the jew' is tragically short-sighted, simplistic and will not serve our people in any real, practical sense over the long term. Should it be something we are wary of and keep at the forefront of our minds? Sure. Should it be something we divide over and further fractionalize this struggling nationalist movement in its infancy? No, I don't think so. The handful of keyboard warriors that try to make 'naming the jew' the line in the sand are a severe detriment to organization, coalition-building and real-world gains.
Yes. Whether through Franco's monotonously childish mantra's Linder's rants, or Trisks long citations of obscure authors, the message is the same and the harm to nationalism is the same.
As I stated previously, AmRen/Jared Taylor is what it is and one either accepts that or they don't. You may not agree with his particular approach in one area, but there's a diplomatic, civilized way to disagree and it isn't to publish diatribes denouncing him or his group because they don't toe one's own ideological line. This is politics, not theology.
For the NSer, as with all totalitarians, politics is their theology.
Take what you can, advance and move forward. I would be highly suspicious of anyone who states that Jared Taylor or American Renaissance is an enemy of nationalism/true conservatism on the par with the ADL or ACLU. But that's my opinion and not worth much in the greater scheme of things.
Worth as much as anything else coming from here.
If naming the jew and strict racialism is one's main cause, then by all means they should pursue it and chase their dream. I just wish they would leave the rest of us who have families, the future and real world in mind alone sometimes.[/QUOTE]
I think that's their only purpose now harassing nationalists like us who must live in the real world. If they really believed in what they said, they wouldn't be here. They'd be somewhere where internet kibbitzing is not an option. Like the jail cell or the grave
Hardcore WN's really aren't very grateful or helpful to the internet for this. Course they aren't grateful or helpful people in general really. One of the reason WWII Europe, after coming to know them so well, came to hate them so. To know them isn't to love them - let's face it - not a whole lot unlike sanctimonious liberals in this respect.
2004-05-25 08:05 | User Profile
I generally find TexDis and Okiereddust's points in this thread to be extremely salient. But these points in the quote below (from Okiereddust) are, I would argue, particularly worthy of ongoing contemplation.
I am sure that many 'anti-racist activists' spend their time in the WN movement, trying to tie it to the lunatic fringe that tends to express as factual what is only true symbolically ('FDR was a Jew' being my favorite example here). Often this is done by casting those who are not sufficiently 'hard-core' by one or another measure. Partly they do this because it is fun--it is fun to pretend to be something you are not. Partly, in the case of the Gentiles leftist, the cause lies with an unconscious sense of the truths lurking in the WN movement that they can't quite get their heads around. But mostly I think that such false-flagging is done because it is an effective, well-copied strategy.
There are also the lunatics, as I will affectionately refer to them. These are generally folk who are caught up in whatever madness it is that makes white folk embrace cultural Marxism and racial self-destruction, but who express this madness not by denouncing white nationalist ideas or their cousins--no, instead, they act as 'spoilers,' folks who just gum things up by unconsciously providing caricatures of WN thinking out of a hidden psychic urge to increase anti-white power. Utimately, these folk are just re-cycling leftist discourse about white nationalists and 'anti-Semites,' so that the leftist criticism will end up matching what was originally just fiction.
(To engage in a bit of what is itself some semi-lunatic speculation: most anti-white madness goes probably goes back to the destructive side of religious impulses, which orient the human away from self- and familial satisfaction to regulatory mechanisms 'aimed' at larger groups, the species, and ultimately the ecosphere. While such regulation can serve life and the rightful goals of whites, too often today--probably given the technology-driven, culturally carcinogenic nature of the late Modern environment--it instead looks like nature wants to eat her technologically and intellectually succesful young.)
[QUOTE=Okiereddust].
When hardcore types keep demanding that the strongest possible perjorative language be used when referring to differing factions in the nationalist movement which keeps the nationalist movement divided, able to do nothing more than argue over historical and ideological matters in remote corners of the internet. Having seen the sinister origins of the language and attitudes of people like Trisk, and the harm they do, one would think one should do ones best to search for them and to root them out.
It is becoming evident to me how, like so much of the white nationalist movement, much of the leadership slogans and attitudes we see in the WN movement actually originate from conscious and dedicated agent provocetuers. When one, even from innocence, imitates or copies their tactics, even out of just habit or subconscious suggestion, one in a sense becomes an unconsious agent provocetuer
Not that I mean to be overly critical. But in the wake of the Trisk incident, I realy think we need to take a hard look at where many of our attitudes and habits come from.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-25 21:22 | User Profile
Okie wrote:
Yes, basically the imitate the constant repition of themes that Goebbels used for the lowest levels of society to be propogandized. Substantively, its a fraud.
**Hey, wait a second -- did you just call me a fraud?????? Tell me now. Yes or no? Give me a "yes" or "no" answer. **
2004-05-25 22:24 | User Profile
Oh, yeah --
Hey, Okie, how many times are you gonna type the name "Trisk?" There are several mentions in just one of your posts.
[edited]
2004-05-25 23:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]There is no doubt that jewish influence permeates our culture and government...I believe said jewish influence is a symptom of the disease affecting America and not the root cause.Ours is a spiritual crisis and if it were not atheistic (marxist?) jews taking advantage of our present weakness then it would be some other group.
That doesn't change the fact that it's not someone else taking advantage of our present weakness -- it's Jews, as you yourself readily admit.
Do we not have to deal with short term before the long term?
If Western man is in the grips of a spiritual crisis -- and I agree with that assessment -- how do you propose we as Christians go about engendering a spiritual awakening with Jews standing in the way of any message of hope we might bring to our people?
Consider the roll call for a moment.
Can Nationalist Christians get their message into the public schools? No.
The media? No.
The newspapers? No.
Hollywood? No. Unless you're a millionaire like Mel Gibson.
NBC? No.
ABC? No.
CBS? No.
Local government? No.
State government? No.
Federal government? No
All of these instutions, and many others, are CLOSED TO CHRISTIANS because of Jewish Supremacist influence, yet, amazingly, you claim that focusing on Jews is ââ¬Åshortsighted.ââ¬Â
I don't get it.
How the hell are we supposed to move forward as Christians if we don't plow through the people standing in our way? (no need to answer; that's a rhetorical question)
Even if we Christians were to put our heads together and collectively come up with a meaningful message of hope to deliver to our people for spiritual renewal, we wouldn't be able to do anything with it because of Jews.
Come on Tex. Let's be real here.
Like it or not, Alex Linder is right on this point.
There doesn't appear to be way out but through the Jew.
That's especially true for Christians, because Jews hate us.
At least Linder stood up for Mel Gibson. Where the heck were our people?
Foxman should have been condemned from every pulpit in the land from coast to coast, but it didn't happen. The only people who backed up Mel in public were a handful of Christians -- who mostly expressed their objections in mealy mouthed terms for fear of "bad publicity" -- and the very Linder-style "purists" Nazis that those on your side of this argument find so useless and objectionanble
Therefore, a narrow focus of 'name the jew' is tragically short-sighted, simplistic and will not serve our people in any real, practical sense over the long term.
Let's deal with the short term first.
Should it be something we are wary of and keep at the forefront of our minds? Sure.
Of course we should be wary and keep this knowledge at the forefront of our minds, but, once again, you left out an important piece: strategically and tactically how do we put that knowledge to use?
I say we use it to attack -- on multiple fronts.
Attack. Attack. Attack. That's what I say.
We Christians have been getting kicked around for a long time.
We can worry about the ââ¬Ålong termââ¬Â when the enemy is dead on the ground.
Should it be something we divide over and further fractionalize this struggling nationalist movement in its infancy? No, I don't think so. The handful of keyboard warriors that try to make 'naming the jew' the line in the sand are a severe detriment to organization, coalition-building and real-world gains.[/QUOTE]
People that insist on attacking/shunning/slandering people due to lack of NS purity are a detriment. And people who insist on attacking/shunning/slandering people due to lack of Paleocon purity are also a detriment. Not to launch yet another paleocon v NS debate and take an otherwise pretty good thread off topic, but let's be fair here: for every Alex Linder there is also a Thomas Flemming. Flemming is no less a problematic "purist" than Linder.
The issue in my mind was never NS versus paleconservatism.
The issue -- and the point of this thread -- is which side is using the best tactics given that the main short term roadblock for Nationalists and Christians is Jewish influence.
Ferric Jager is right. The racialist tent should be pretty big, and people shouldn't be excluded because of ideological purity.
But under the circumstances, it's very much an open question in my mind whether not naming the Jew is the right course of action as a matter of strategy.
2004-05-25 23:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Foxman should have been condemned from every pulpit in the land from coast to coast, but it didn't happen.
Did you see this thread when I posted it last month?
[url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=12996]Passion Revisionism[/url]
Came out in the April [url=http://lutheranspokesman.org/]Lutheran Spokesman[/url], the monthly magazine of the [url=http://clclutheran.org/]Church of the Lutheran Confession[/url]
If you're looking for clergy condemnation of the ADL's hysteria over "The Passion" in the mainstream media, you probably won't find it--not because it didn't happen, but because the media isn't sympathetic to the doctrinal positions and worldviews of convervative, non-dispensational Christians.
2004-05-26 00:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]**Hey, wait a second -- did you just call me a fraud?????? Tell me now. Yes or no? Give me a "yes" or "no" answer. **
--------------[/QUOTE] Frank - as a comedian you're a real funny guy. Now if you tell people you're doing something really substantive here yes, you're pulling their legs a little bit.
2004-05-26 00:02 | User Profile
Centinel, No I missed that one.
But it seems to me you're making my point for me.
If there was a lot of condemnation of Foxman, why aren't more people aware of it?
The answer, of course, isn't that the media is unsympathic -- it's that Jews, who run the media, hate Christians they can't exploit.
How does not pointing that out help our side?
[QUOTE=Centinel]Did you see this thread when I posted it last month?
[url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=12996]Passion Revisionism[/url]
Came out in the April [url=http://lutheranspokesman.org/]Lutheran Spokesman[/url], the monthly magazine of the [url=http://clclutheran.org/]Church of the Lutheran Confession[/url]
If you're looking for clergy condemnation of the ADL's hysteria over "The Passion" in the mainstream media, you probably won't find it--not because it didn't happen, but because the media isn't sympathetic to the doctrinal positions and worldviews of convervative, non-dispensational Christians.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-26 00:06 | User Profile
And people who insist on attacking/shunning/slandering people due to lack of Paleocon purity are also a detriment.
Well, I read paleocon stuff all through the late 1980s. Never learned much except that 'the Left is a threat to the West,' etc., etc. How does that help me?
Then I began reading NA stuff. What a world of difference. It seemed that the nugget of 'who leads the Left, Marxism, feminism, etc.' was NOT 'the Left' but THE JEW. All movements have a pointman, and the Jew was the pointman to wreck American culture. So I wasted about 3 years reading paleocon writings.
Modern paleocons have money, magazines, groups, websites. They could be warning the public that ONE RACE leads the wrecking of the West since there is not much time to do that. But no, the paleocons are not warning about Jews....that might cause a 'controversy'.....can't have that....and, when we WNs point out that paleocons are not warning the public about the Jew, we WNs get attacked in print all over the web. Almost funny. Almost.
2004-05-26 00:08 | User Profile
I will now ask Okie a 2nd time:
"Hey, wait a second -- did you just call me a fraud?????? Tell me now. Yes or no? Give me a "yes" or "no" answer."
Answer my question, please.
2004-05-26 00:11 | User Profile
Correction.
Franco and I said that we would exlcude Jews if we were running a Nationalist org, because not excluding Jews does not offer any benefits. And, so far, you, Tex, FJ, and darkstar haven't been able to point to any tangible benefits.
No where did either of us make a blanket demand for Nuremburg style race laws [SIZE=4]throughout the nationalist movement.[/SIZE]
Why do you persist in making obviously false and misleading statements Okie?
darkstar may find them salient, but my experience has been that lying and lack of credibility often go hand in hand.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Yes, basically the imitate the constant repition of themes that Goebbels used for the lowest levels of society to be propogandized. Substantively, its a fraud.
I think this illustrates one of the reasons Am.Ren. tends to use great caution in bringing up "the Jewish Question". Clearly it is a problem of real complexity, existing on several levels. To bring it up prematurely, without proper caution, and without understanding of its ramifications will cause a great deal of harm.
Even very intelligent and nuanced readers can fall for this trap. This own thread is a perfect example, how AntiYuppies original post, which really just warned about the dangers of a domination of the movement equivalent to what the neocons did to conservatism, evolved in the understanding of many into a demand for Nuremburg style race laws throughout the nationalist movement.
If we can't handle it will, imagine how much difficulty Am.Ren. might have. Though its a difficult and sensitive topic, it very badly needs to be addressed. But its a difficult task, something obviously evemn forum like this have a great deal accomplishing.
Yes. Whether through Franco's monotonously childish mantra's Linder's rants, or Trisks long citations of obscure authors, the message is the same and the harm to nationalism is the same.
For the NSer, as with all totalitarians, politics is their theology.
Worth as much as anything else coming from here.
I think that's their only purpose now harassing nationalists like us who must live in the real world. If they really believed in what they said, they wouldn't be here. They'd be somewhere where internet kibbitzing is not an option. Like the jail cell or the grave
Hardcore WN's really aren't very grateful or helpful to the internet for this. Course they aren't grateful or helpful people in general really. One of the reason WWII Europe, after coming to know them so well, came to hate them so. To know them isn't to love them - let's face it - not a whole lot unlike sanctimonious liberals in this respect.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-26 00:17 | User Profile
Agree 100%.
Point well taken.
I admit my using "traitor" langauage, in the absence of clear evidence justifying the label, was a mistake.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]When hardcore types keep demanding that the strongest possible perjorative language be used when referring to differing factions in the nationalist movement which keeps the nationalist movement divided, able to do nothing more than argue over historical and ideological matters in remote corners of the internet. Having seen the sinister origins of the language and attitudes of people like Trisk, and the harm they do, one would think one should do ones best to search for them and to root them out.
It is becoming evident to me how, like so much of the white nationalist movement, much of the leadership slogans and attitudes we see in the WN movement actually originate from conscious and dedicated agent provocetuers. When one, even from innocence, imitates or copies their tactics, even out of just habit or subconscious suggestion, one in a sense becomes an unconsious agent provocetuer
Not that I mean to be overly critical. But in the wake of the Trisk incident, I realy think we need to take a hard look at where many of our attitudes and habits come from.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-26 00:25 | User Profile
Our movement (whatever that is) is at a heck of a disadvantage. We have little influence and must overcome decades of brainwashing to get through to our bretheren, or even other gentiles in general. This is why I advocate the "big tent, little tent" strategy. The little tent is for those that Whites should breed with. The big tent is for all gentiles who oppose our most dangerous enemy, the Jews. That doesn't mean we should include non-Whites in our private social circles, just that we should strive to work with any gentiles that may be of strategic value in our opposition to the Jews. It takes a certain mentality, almost predator-like, to cut through the Jewish smokescreen. Most of us are ornery in nature compared to the general population. The artist, the affable "people person", the don't-give-a-$hits, the bleeding hearts, the happy go lucky and the "just think postive" mentalities don't end up here. It's our nature to engage in power struggles. This is why we are always fighting amongst ourselves. One of the biggest hurdles for us is to just cooperate with each other and put away our less crucial differences.
2004-05-26 00:28 | User Profile
Same here Franco.
I invested years reading people like Kirk, Bradford, Flemming, Sowell, Jaffa, etc.
None of them -- save Sobran -- had the guts to tell the truth.
That's why our opponents on this thread are getting thrashed so badly in this discussion.
They have nothing to offer except the failed strategies of the past.
We have 60 years of precedent proving beyond all doubt that not naming the Jew gets you no where.
No where.
And for those who doubt me, ask yourself, where are the Kirkian conservatives today?
Where are Jews today?
'Nuff said.
[QUOTE=Franco]Well, I read paleocon stuff all through the late 1980s. Never learned much except that 'the Left is a threat to the West,' etc., etc. How does that help me?
Then I began reading NA stuff. What a world of difference. It seemed that the nugget of 'who leads the Left, Marxism, feminism, etc.' was NOT 'the Left' but THE JEW. All movements have a pointman, and the Jew was the pointman to wreck American culture. So I wasted about 3 years reading paleocon writings.
Modern paleocons have money, magazines, groups, websites. They could be warning the public that ONE RACE leads the wrecking of the West since there is not much time to do that. But no, the paleocons are not warning about Jews....that might cause a 'controversy'.....can't have that....and, when we WNs point out that paleocons are not warning the public about the Jew, we WNs get attacked in print all over the web. Almost funny. Almost.
--------------[/QUOTE]