← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Johnathan
Thread ID: 13888 | Posts: 17 | Started: 2004-05-26
2004-05-26 03:32 | User Profile
Hello. This is my first time posting here, but I have been a long time reader. There are some very good minds on this board, although it seems that "PaleoconAvatar" and "Triskelion" are gone now and I think that is unfortunate.
I want to contribute something, so I figured I'd begin posting.
I have noticed a really disturbing anti-intellectual slant in modern WN thought in America. I think that the propaganda really appeals to the lowest common denominator and that these organizations such as the NA seem to serve little function other than to give a predominantly rural consituency a sounding board to vent about the injustices committed against White America by the inner party. In my dealings with these types of people, I have seen a great deal of counterproductive conduct, class war nonsense, and a completely perverse, self-contained reasoning.
I guess that aforementioned greivances were best exemplified by Jim Giles' posts that I read earlier today on this very board. I am not trying to insult or demean Giles', and I think that it is good that he is attempting to represent a rather dispossesed and ignored White demographic, but his rhetoric, his proletarian vulgarity, and his overt hostility is not reconcilable with a viable political image. This is the reality of things.
Perhaps I am being too judgemental here, but I believe that revolutionary change starts at the top, not the bottom. A Peasant Rebellion is not going to coerce the Inner Party into abdicating its power, nor should we pray for such a day.
We need to resist culture distortion at the local level, but vulgar, enraged appeals to the rural poor is not an effective tactic.
Thanx for listening. I look forward to talking with you guys.
2004-05-26 03:40 | User Profile
Welcome aboard. Good observations.
There's no way you could know this, but it turns out that Triskelion was a fraud. (See Cyber Activism forum).
As for activism, I'm also a top down person.
Ultimately, it's the intellectuals that control the fate of any civilization.
2004-05-26 07:10 | User Profile
I would suggest just forgetting about NA, Vanguard, or even Stormfront, outside of perhaps some occasionaly posting. Not to say there is nothing valuable there, but the hardcore will continue on what people like you are I think anyway -- while, at the same time, there is more need to work with forums such as OD, AmRen, the American Conservative, Chronicles, and libertarian/decentralist organizations. It is true that none of these forums are explicitly white racialist (AmRen being more 'white and Jewish racialist'), but there doesn't need to be a core organization for white racialists. We can spread our ideas just fine in other areas. Someday, some more organization might be useful, but right now it is all about creating a proper intellectual climate step-by-step.
The 'preaching to the lowest common denominator types' carried the torch bravely for a long time, in however psychotic a fasion, but now the torch needs a bit of handing off. Again, NA et al will do there thing no matter what, so I am not suggesting they are to curl up and die or turn into something they are not -- just that the main thrust of the white racialist message has to be furthered by a different (if somewhat overlapping) set of people.
2004-05-26 13:48 | User Profile
Welcome, Jonathan.
Walter
2004-05-26 16:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Consequently, the only way to get the majority on our side is to have people representing our views as part of the media elite.[/QUOTE]
Or create our own media.
2004-05-26 17:10 | User Profile
This is very true. It always amazes me how many conservatives simply repeat the pap fed to them by the Party approved sources of talking points. Still, the GOP is sometimes responsive to its base; I am not sure they know what would happen if they wandered to far from it too quickly. Hence I think it is worth keeping in mind how fickle the Freeper types are--they are masters of total belief without ground, which includes issues such consistency over time and with other beliefs. Today the problem of immigrants is 'illegals not learning English, but let's not be racist.' Tommorow this might be 'things have really changed in America, and we need to re-affirm our longstanding commitments to the Founders WASP culture.'
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie] You can be sure that a Freeper braying, "Nook them Ayrabs for Israel and Gawd" would be shouting OUR slogans if your or I appeared on Faux news instead of William Kristol and Bill Bennett.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-27 05:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Johnathan]Hello. This is my first time posting here, but I have been a long time reader. There are some very good minds on this board, although it seems that "PaleoconAvatar" and "Triskelion" are gone now and I think that is unfortunate.
I want to contribute something, so I figured I'd begin posting.
I have noticed a really disturbing anti-intellectual slant in modern WN thought in America. I think that the propaganda really appeals to the lowest common denominator and that these organizations such as the NA seem to serve little function other than to give a predominantly rural consituency a sounding board to vent about the injustices committed against White America by the inner party. In my dealings with these types of people, I have seen a great deal of counterproductive conduct, class war nonsense, and a completely perverse, self-contained reasoning.
I guess that aforementioned greivances were best exemplified by Jim Giles' posts that I read earlier today on this very board. I am not trying to insult or demean Giles', and I think that it is good that he is attempting to represent a rather dispossesed and ignored White demographic, but his rhetoric, his proletarian vulgarity, and his overt hostility is not reconcilable with a viable political image. This is the reality of things.
Well Jim Giles is really no exception. Anti-intellectualism is one of the basic defining things about National Socialism, as I noted in a thread discussion with Triskelion.
[quote=Frederick William]It has been pointed out that absence of a basic theory is one of the important differences between National Socialism and Bolshevism. (Franz Neumann, Behemoth)While Lenin long before 1917 had committed himself to a definite programme, Hitlre remained as sphinx even after 1933. His "program", the famous "25 points" going back to the year 1920, contained a hodgepodge of ferocious and pious "demands" which were designed to woo the most diverse elements in society. [url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showpost.php?p=37614&postcount=39]Klan vs. Nazis -- A Response To Walter Kurtz [/url]
Perhaps I am being too judgemental here, but I believe that revolutionary change starts at the top, not the bottom. A Peasant Rebellion is not going to coerce the Inner Party into abdicating its power, nor should we pray for such a day.
We need to resist culture distortion at the local level, but vulgar, enraged appeals to the rural poor is not an effective tactic.
Thanx for listening. I look forward to talking with you guys.[/QUOTE]
Well I doubt if its going to start at the top either. Practically of course truly revolutionary programs contain mixtures of all elements, mass vs. intellectually targeted material, activities, and organization etc.
Most really effective programs for revolution come actually from Marxist sources, Lenin, Trotsky, and of course the Frankfurt School. It is sort of an ideological weakness of National Socialism that it lacks any comparatively effective body of strategy and tactics.
2004-05-27 06:20 | User Profile
Most really effective programs for revolution come actually from Marxist sources, Lenin, Trotsky, and of course the Frankfurt School. It is sort of an ideological weakness of National Socialism that it lacks any comparatively effective body of strategy and tactics.
Well, Marxists are much more fanatical than Nazis. They are more emotional and that emotionalism drives the Marxists onward, harder and faster than the Nazis.
Plus, the Jews are more fanatical anyway, and Marx and Lenin [part-Jew] were Jewish, ditto most of the other top troublemakers in European countries [the revolutionaries].
2004-05-27 07:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Well, Marxists are much more fanatical than Nazis. They are more emotional and that emotionalism drives the Marxists onward, harder and faster than the Nazis. Interesting observation. If true, that's sort of a slur on the Nazi's. But I don't think that's realy true. I think rather its a different kind of fanatacism, rational versus irrational/mystical
Plus, the Jews are more fanatical anyway, and Marx and Lenin [part-Jew] were Jewish, ditto most of the other top troublemakers in European countries [the revolutionaries]. -----------[/QUOTE]Well Jews are definitely more comfortable with the revolutionary/subversive mindset. But I thikn there's more involved there.
The National Socialists took power in Germany on a basically revolutionary program based on a somewhat eclectic but definitely revolutionary body of ideas by leaders like Rohm, Goebbels, and (Gregor) Strasser, derived from the concepts of Moeller, Spengler and Junger. Once there though, they became distrustful of these ideas, preferring to base their success on their own power and unopposed capacity for propaganda.
Such ideas can work when you're in power. But when you abandon theory for might, you're lost when might fails. Hence National Socialists today still have not come to the slightest understanding of the meaning of their defeat in WWII, or how to achieve power without the support of a sympathetic German government.
The true fanatical Nazi's are those still responding to the calls for self-immolation by Hitler from the grave. Those who are still alive by contrast naturally tend not to be fanatical.
2004-05-27 19:08 | User Profile
Johnathan,
And hello to you; yes I agree. [QUOTE]Hello. This is my first time posting here, but I have been a long time reader. There are some very good minds on this board, although it seems that "PaleoconAvatar" and "Triskelion" are gone now and I think that is unfortunate. [/QUOTE]
I have often wished the American Right could become more like the European Right. More Evola, Spengler, Wagner, and such like. We European first we must always remember.
2004-05-29 09:03 | User Profile
So, who decides who is "intellectual" and who is is not?
I once ripped a college history professor a new one (I knew more than he did). He had me removed ... permanently. Since then, I have become the jew's worst nightmare: a self-educated White man.
2004-05-29 22:38 | User Profile
I think an intellectual is anyone who is considered an intellectual by the elites.
Gore Vidal and David Irving didn't go to college, so far as I know, or maybe Irving went to college, but didn't go to grad school like most historians.
In any event, both are considered intellectuals by friend and foe alike.
[QUOTE=Kurt]So, who decides who is "intellectual" and who is is not?
I once ripped a college history professor a new one (I knew more than he did). He had me removed ... permanently. Since then, I have become the jew's worst nightmare: a self-educated White man.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-02 20:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Johnathan]Hello. This is my first time posting here, but I have been a long time reader. There are some very good minds on this board, although it seems that "PaleoconAvatar" and "Triskelion" are gone now and I think that is unfortunate.
I want to contribute something, so I figured I'd begin posting.
I have noticed a really disturbing anti-intellectual slant in modern WN thought in America. I think that the propaganda really appeals to the lowest common denominator and that these organizations such as the NA seem to serve little function other than to give a predominantly rural consituency a sounding board to vent about the injustices committed against White America by the inner party. In my dealings with these types of people, I have seen a great deal of counterproductive conduct, class war nonsense, and a completely perverse, self-contained reasoning.
I guess that aforementioned greivances were best exemplified by Jim Giles' posts that I read earlier today on this very board. I am not trying to insult or demean Giles', and I think that it is good that he is attempting to represent a rather dispossesed and ignored White demographic, but his rhetoric, his proletarian vulgarity, and his overt hostility is not reconcilable with a viable political image. This is the reality of things.
Perhaps I am being too judgemental here, but I believe that revolutionary change starts at the top, not the bottom. A Peasant Rebellion is not going to coerce the Inner Party into abdicating its power, nor should we pray for such a day.
We need to resist culture distortion at the local level, but vulgar, enraged appeals to the rural poor is not an effective tactic.
Thanx for listening. I look forward to talking with you guys.[/QUOTE]
White nationalism in europe has made gains through populist appeals to the urban working class, literally people who were formerly the constituency of the communist left. The white elites are not going to embrace revolution because they are benefiting from the current order.
2004-07-02 21:15 | User Profile
The National Alliance purports to be "intellectual", yet panders largely to individuals that Adolf Hitler himself would have ordered beaten half to death by SS troops before hauling them all off to a forced labor camp. In other words, the average member of the NA is a semi-literate scumball, while the organization itself sugar-coats itself in a glaze of intellectuosity for the benefit of the media and its few well-to-do financial supporters. This common (and accurate) perception of the National Alliance is why they have recently made so many enemies, especially among those who formerly supported them. It's just that the fraud they're perpetrating became too obvious to ignore any longer, even by their most loyal and dedicated followers. Unfortunately, alternative organizations like White Revolution and Euro are just as bad, the former run by a band of incompetent thugs and ex-cons and the latter by a flim-flam man.
2004-07-02 23:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Johnathan]Hello. This is my first time posting here, but I have been a long time reader. There are some very good minds on this board, although it seems that "PaleoconAvatar" and "Triskelion" are gone now and I think that is unfortunate.
I didn't notice this thread before. I'm not gone. I occasionally take a break from posting, but I check in now and again.
I have noticed a really disturbing anti-intellectual slant in modern WN thought in America. I think that the propaganda really appeals to the lowest common denominator and that these organizations such as the NA seem to serve little function other than to give a predominantly rural consituency a sounding board to vent about the injustices committed against White America by the inner party. In my dealings with these types of people, I have seen a great deal of counterproductive conduct, class war nonsense, and a completely perverse, self-contained reasoning.
I hadn't noticed this. Perhaps you mean a different organization than the NA, since the NA puts out very well-written publications. Kevin Strom, best known for his American Dissident Voices broadcasts [which enlightened me when I was in high school in the early nineties], posted at this board a few times, and this would be the first time I'd heard anyone suggest he was "anti-intellectual."
As far as "class war," it is undeniable that in this country, the plutocrats are not on the side of White Americans. They're much more interested in lining their own pockets and "trend-setting" the latest (usually destructive) fad. They're also the lovely people who brought us the concept of "outsourcing" entire American industries. Clearly some regulatory authority needs to reign such elements in.
I've learned to get beyond the usual affliction of the American Right which demonizes "Big Government." "Big Business" is just as destructive, if not more so. I've concluded that AntiYuppie is right about this issue--it's not the means that matter, but the ends. Government can achieve right-wing ends, such as the preservation of the traditional racial fabric of the nation. NeoNietzsche, who is sadly no longer at OD, also contributed to the demythologizing of what he called "set-it-and-forget-it government." Basically, he underscored for me the fact that what really matters is that it is our government, not one that serves the interests of aliens.
I've come a long way on this issue, actually. Only a couple years ago did I finally internalize the fact that there is no force of necessity driving an unbreakable link between the "right-wing" in this country and libertarian, pro-capitalist sentiments. I've also realized that there are Eurocentric and Traditional ways to support environmental protection initiatives--the writings of Savitri Devi might provide a link to reclaim the minds of some of our wayward youth who gravitate to traditionally "Leftist" ecological themes. Indeed, Buchanan's The American Conservative has taken excellent steps in this direction--I'm thinking of the Nader interview as well as an earlier issue dealing with the book Dominion and the horrific treatment of animals at the hands of Big Agribusiness.
I guess that aforementioned greivances were best exemplified by Jim Giles' posts that I read earlier today on this very board. I am not trying to insult or demean Giles', and I think that it is good that he is attempting to represent a rather dispossesed and ignored White demographic, but his rhetoric, his proletarian vulgarity, and his overt hostility is not reconcilable with a viable political image. This is the reality of things.
We have to keep in mind that the idea of a "viable political image" is suspect because of who defines "viability"--namely, an alien-controlled media. That's always been the "fly in the ointment"--we end up playing on a field entirely controlled by our enemies. Howard Dean learned this the hard way, when the media decided to define what was "Presidential behavior" at his expense.
Perhaps I am being too judgemental here, but I believe that revolutionary change starts at the top, not the bottom. A Peasant Rebellion is not going to coerce the Inner Party into abdicating its power, nor should we pray for such a day.
I can see it both ways, but I tend to agree that in reality, it's top-down that really decides things in the end. Even "common people" make their assessments of people and ideas based on what the people on TV or in positions of high authority say about them. That's precisely how segregation in this country was ended. Even though most people originally agreed with segregation, support for it eroded in the public consciousness over time due to the constant barrage of televised pronouncements against it, buttressed by what was taught by teachers and pastors and the like. I imagine it is part of human nature to want to identify with whatever people (especially "influential" people) say is the "cool and sophisticated" way.
We need to resist culture distortion at the local level, but vulgar, enraged appeals to the rural poor is not an effective tactic.
Perhaps, but I remain partial to the idea of presenting a wide variety of "propaganda" targeted toward each part of a potential audience. Some people respond better to what's in the "Ivory Tower," while others relate more to what's on the "privy wall." If I'm not mistaken, that's the broad-spectrum advocated by George Lincoln Rockwell. Messages should be tailored in such a way that there is something for everyone--let a thousand flowers bloom.
2004-07-03 01:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Johnathan]Hello. This is my first time posting here, but I have been a long time reader. There are some very good minds on this board, although it seems that "PaleoconAvatar" and "Triskelion" are gone now and I think that is unfortunate.
Trisk/V.O. of course was fictitious but really the individual behind him was very smart, articulate, and well read, even if not perhaps as much as he intended to be.
If he was really that intellectual and his ideas so good, he would have stayed around to defend them though, and wouldn't have chosen such an ignoble vehicle. Sums up National Socialism
I want to contribute something, so I figured I'd begin posting. Not evreyone ufortunately posts for such reasons.
I have noticed a really disturbing anti-intellectual slant in modern WN thought in America. I think that the propaganda really appeals to the lowest common denominator and that these organizations such as the NA seem to serve little function other than to give a predominantly rural consituency a sounding board to vent about the injustices committed against White America by the inner party. In my dealings with these types of people, I have seen a great deal of counterproductive conduct, class war nonsense, and a completely perverse, self-contained reasoning.
I guess that aforementioned greivances were best exemplified by Jim Giles' posts that I read earlier today on this very board. I am not trying to insult or demean Giles', and I think that it is good that he is attempting to represent a rather dispossesed and ignored White demographic, but his rhetoric, his proletarian vulgarity, and his overt hostility is not reconcilable with a viable political image. This is the reality of things.
Of course if we want an even better example on this board, it was Franco, and his Goebbels based ideas of repitative propaganda.
2004-07-03 01:34 | User Profile
Not just Franco. There's a whole slew of members here who misrepresent WN as illogical, angry, and deceptive malcontents. I truly do not believe a true WN matches that description. However, I do not think NA is true WN either. A WN wants nothing more than most cultures...to not be eradicated or wiped out, and to live amongst similar people. I don't know where all of this forced deportation, NS crap comes from.
A bunch of groups figure this is their chance to take advantage of chaos nad get some influence. But, most of their views are so disjointed and wacky, that there is little interest. I first heard the NA on a cable show in Richmond(mid-90's), and it was nothing like the knotheads I see on the net, professing to be NA.