← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr
Thread ID: 15227 | Posts: 19 | Started: 2004-10-05
2004-10-05 19:36 | User Profile
I can't believe that I myself once thought that this guy was something more than a variation of your average loudmouthed all-knowing BLOGGER.
Look how he is trying to act all tough at the end of this rant - does anyone in here feel shivers in his backbone when this 38-year old childless bachelor, who lives in his grandmother's basement (so I've heard) tells you that "religionists" ought to learn to fear "Aryans" like him?
(Notice that he does not rant only about Christianity, but also against Christians themselves, whom he more or less brands as dumb sub-humans, and against the very idea of God itself.)
Petr
[url]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2004b/100404letters.htm[/url]
[COLOR=Blue]Ed. Note: I just say what I say to tweak the Christians. I don't believe in things that don't exist. Christians grow angry, because that's what Christians do. Stupid and humorless folk can't stand rational questions, obvious observations -- they're abject in their mental mud, and can't stand anything clean. "Those who can, do. Those who can't, moralize." Christianity is a means by which the left half the bell curve is used by sharpers of the right. I won't waste a second of my time trying to persuade fools who think the laws of the universe are somehow suspended because some jew scribbled it in a book of lies. Hey, Christian: have you ever, personally, known of anybody who came back from the dead? I read a good book on these idiots, with the wonderful title, Don't Call Me Brother by Austin Miles. He got mixed up with the Assemblies of God nitwits, basically found their leaders a bunch of sex-crazed scammers. He came from the circus, literally ran away to join it, and became a famous ringmaster. His conclusion: carnies are 100x more moral and reliable than the jesus jumpers. My conclusion: If you believe in Jesus, you'll fall for anything. Protocols contains the truth about what jews really believe; the Bible just has what they want you to believe. There's force, and there's make believe. Morality only has power to the extent you can get others to buy into your system. Force, by contrast, works absolutely. When you kill someone, that man is dead. This is why the jews murdered Mr. Long, and just possibly Mr. Kennedy. There's force and make-believe, and if you sign up with Jesus, you're on the side of make-believe. Religionists are the most likely to go sideways in the clutch, too, because always at the back of their mind, leaping to the front under pressure, is the idea that, after all, God wanted it that way -- no matter what that way turns out to be. God is always on the side of giving in, because always at the back of the religious man's mind, leaping to the front when things grow difficult, is the idea that he's encountering the resistance because he's fighting God's will. God does and explains everything! He's upside and down at the same time. He wants this -- or that. It doesn't make a difference. The idea that God wanted it that way is always there to kick in and justify natural laziness, cowardice, fatigue whenver the Christian grows weary. God's a comforting excuse that never abandons you in times of trouble, even if He created them! The religious man is religious in no small measure because it lets him escape responsibility for his actions. The religious man will claim the opposite, that only he is bound by moral convictions and commandments, but o ho! you just see how he observes these in practice! For every Flanders, a dozen philanderers. There are no gods, there are only men struggling. Their decisions, character, and will alone determine the outcome. The christians -- these aren't men, these are adult children. I guarantee you at this very moment there are two people in Florida, living in adjacent houses. One of them thanks Jeboo for sparing her house from the hurricane. The other one thanking Jesus for destroying her house, because it was a needed lesson, and or course, "everything happens for a reason." The man who believes that "everything happens for a reason" is a dangerous fool. He is very likely to lack brains, character and imagination. Jebooism is a way to mulct, pacify and entertain the lower classes, no one intelligent really believes it, has always been my suspicion, although I know that many intelligent men pretend to believe it because they think it sets a good example. For those who write and tell me to take it easy on the Christians, don't bother. They've shown by their behavior how they are to be treated. They send their sons off to die for Israel, even while the ADL rips any reference to their religion off the tiniest plaque in the jerkest water. So, they are to be reviled and scorned and maltreated -- and they get off on it! The religionists should be treated like the conservatives: they both like being whipped, so whip them. They should learn to fear us Aryans the way they fear jews[/COLOR].
2004-10-05 20:31 | User Profile
(By the way - here is JP Holding's review of that "Don't Call Me Brother" book that Linder uncritically praised to heavens)
[url]http://www.tektonics.org/lp/milesa01.html[/url]
Petr
2004-10-05 22:49 | User Profile
I'm sure he's beginning to sense his own irrelevancy and therefore lashing out more and more in desperation.
I turned him off months ago and would recommend anyone else do the same. Believer or not, you'll be a better person for it.
2004-10-05 23:17 | User Profile
Did you know that about two years ago Linder had an astonishing obsession about General Lee?
He flew into rage when some article noticed what a great CHRISTIAN gentleman Lee was. Believe it or not, he very seriously tried to use ROBERT E. LEE as an example on how Christianity corrupts people!
He argued that if Lee had behaved more like him - I believe that he said that Lee should have "raged" more, instead of being so calm and dignified, and resort everywhere to same kind of atrocities that made William Quantrill notorious. This way, he implied, Confederacy would have had better chances to win.
Surreal.
Petr
2004-10-06 02:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I turned him off months ago and would recommend anyone else do the same. Believer or not, you'll be a better person for it.[/QUOTE]
Alex who?
2004-10-06 03:11 | User Profile
How did such a banal, idiotic, offensive, childish buffoon ever reach such prominence anyway? Those were my thoughts when I first discovered Mr. Linder, and I've never seen reason to change them. The guy produces nothing but rudeness and yawns. If he were still 19 years old, the guy might have potential. Alas....
2004-10-06 09:02 | User Profile
While I havenââ¬â¢t glanced at VNN in over six months I doubt the theme and tone has changed one iota, but when I was a regular reader what I did find valuable about Linderââ¬â¢s work was the cathartic nature of a shout over a whisper. I regarded the spintros as primarily moral boosting fighting talk for the troops rather than actual political policy; after all sophistry is not substance - merely the garnish.
I also believed that there was a significant proportion of the VNN readership who could distinguish between words and deeds, specifically the personal conduct that is required when dealing with the real world. Net-Nazis on VNNForum and elsewhere have long since disabused me of those notions and Linderââ¬â¢s words without Linderââ¬â¢s considerable talent ring very empty indeed. The White nationalist movement is infested with solipsistic parasites who poison every discussion they touch with their childish and ultimately egocentric fantasies. They shout "WE!" but their ever-decreasing circles of 'truth' ultimately lead to "ME!"
2004-10-06 09:31 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed] - " How did such a banal, idiotic, offensive, childish buffoon ever reach such prominence anyway? "[/COLOR]
Two words: "smooth-talking" and "salesmanship."
Also, Linder sometimes had some borrowed quality material on his site - like articles by E. Michael Jones, for example.
I must admit that on his saner periods, Linder used to give me an impression of a pretty efficient propagandist - not a scholar, no sir, but a propagandist.
Now that I think about it, I have never actually seen Linder in a proper forum debate. Like Plato, it is easy for him to sound smart and overwhelming in his self-indulgent monologues, when there is no-one to interrupt him and challenge his claims and sources.
Petr
2004-10-06 15:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr] He argued that if Lee had behaved more like him - I believe that he said that Lee should have "raged" more, instead of being so calm and dignified, and resort everywhere to same kind of atrocities that made William Quantrill notorious. This way, he implied, Confederacy would have had better chances to win.[/QUOTE] Did I hear my name? Seriously, though, Quantrill has been thoroughly misunderstood. He was fighting in Missouri, where there were no organized Confederate troops. Therefore, the Federals did not consider him a soldier, but an outlaw, and they stated that he would be hanged if captured, not treated like a prisoner of war. Thus, he was forced to fight under the black flag, which means no quarter asked for and none given. Second, the atrocities of the Federals in Missouri were legion, and Quantrill's retaliation must be viewed in that light. Lastly, desperate times call for desperate measures, and Quantrill did what he thought he had to do to drive the invaders from his nation. I am not condoning every action he took, but it is difficult for me to sit in judgement of him. What would [I]you[/I] be willing to do repel invaders that were occupying your homes, raping your women, and destroying your culture? Are you so certain that you wouldn't do the same thing?
2004-10-06 16:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Alex who?[/QUOTE]
Ha! :lol:
Exactly, Sert.
:thumbsup:
2004-10-06 16:31 | User Profile
Now now Quantrill, don't take this too personally.
I don't have knowledge about the details of this case, and I don't mean to insult you, but the fact is, for better or worse, that he's now got a reputation as a bloodthirsty person, and that's how those VNNers saw him - and considered it a positive trait, of course.
Petr
2004-10-06 17:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Now now Quantrill, don't take this too personally.
I don't have knowledge about the details of this case, and I don't mean to insult you, but the fact is, for better or worse, that he's now got a reputation as a bloodthirsty person, and that's how those VNNers saw him - and considered it a positive trait, of course.[/QUOTE] Petr, I'm not taking it personally at all. I'm sorry if my reply came off that way. I was merely trying to provide some background information. Quantrill does have a bloodthirsty reputation; there is no denying that.
2004-10-06 17:50 | User Profile
Quantrill,
Speaking of blood thirsty, I wonder if Rep. Blunt of Missouri is related to the Federal commander by the same name? He was a real s.o.b.
2004-10-06 18:02 | User Profile
The antagonism of certain racialists for Christianity or Christians is one of the real Achilles' heels of the nationalist movement. If anyone will notice, there is plenty of biblical injunction supporting race separation and nationalist sympathies.
The stupidity of it all, as well as Linders' rabid Nietszchean rhetoric, turned me off months ago. I still visit VNN on occasion, but usually to little avail.
2004-10-07 01:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]The antagonism of certain racialists for Christianity or Christians is one of the real Achilles' heels of the nationalist movement. If anyone will notice, there is plenty of biblical injunction supporting race separation and nationalist sympathies.[/QUOTE] Well stated, Buster. G. K. Chesterton wrote in [I]Orthodoxy[/I] something to the effect that true Christianity is the one right thing, and you can tell where someone goes wrong by how they criticize it. The libertines think it too severe, the Mohammedans think it too merciful. The secularists accuse it of aggression and crusading, while the Nietzschean supermen simultaneously deride it for a passive, slave mentality. The feminists claim it oppresses women, while the Orient thinks it indulges them. Either Christianity is so uniquely monstrous that it can encourage contradictory vices at the same time, or else all these critics are merely demonstrating the errors in their own belief systems by the way they criticize it.
2004-10-07 02:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]The stupidity of it all, as well as Linders' rabid Nietszchean rhetoric, turned me off months ago. I still visit VNN on occasion, but usually to little avail.[/QUOTE] Linder is certainly anti-religious now, and I certainly don't want to get into discussions with NeoNietzsche again, but I don't think his anti-religious rhetoric sounds Nietszchien at all. It actually sounds more like the Marxist critique of religion as "the opiate of the masses" to me, with echoes of Freud also.
It just shows to me Linder is not a very original thinker, or even thinks much at all really. And his rants seem to spread a certain spirit of irrationality around.Witness our board and posters like Il Ragno.
And there is a grain of truth in his criticism, like that of all criticisms. But the bottom line is Linder hardly impresses me as smarter than these "adult children" he criticizes. In fact, Linder using that phrase has a certain unintentional irony.
2004-10-07 08:01 | User Profile
[COLOR=Blue]- " ... I don't think his anti-religious rhetoric sounds Nietszchien at all. It actually sounds more like the Marxist critique of religion as "the opiate of the masses" to me, with echoes of Freud also. "[/COLOR]
That's right.
At the bottom of it, Marx and Nietzsche were not THAT different in their attitudes towards religion.
Both promoted the idea that Christianity was essentially a "religion of slaves" that free men could, and should do without.
(This is the basic idea of all pagan philosophies - the ideal of an autonomous man who creates his own reality, and doesn't need to obey any transcendent Creator-God.)
But actually, the latest research has shown that the Church was originally dominated by upwards-mobile middle-class people - even though there were both very poor and very rich members also involved.
See these reviews, for example:
[url]http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/5788.html[/url]
[url]http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/133/52.0.html[/url]
The difference between them was, ironically, that Marx had genuine WILL TO POWER, a drive for success, he wanted to overthrow the whole world and worked actively to that end, while Nietzsche, for all his pretensions, was quite an effete (possibly had sex with a woman only once in his lifetime), inefficient snob that was mostly content on demonstrating his own superiority and sneering at the pathetic human beings through his literature.
Truly here we have clear demonstration of the saying: "you talk most about those things which you yourself do not possess."
Nietzsche had no real "will to power," and Marx had no real love for workers or commitment to the principle of equality.
Marxism is only nominally about "equality" - in practice it is about CONTROL, making the stupefied masses as obedient tools for the bureaucratic elite, and that model comes straight from the Pythagorean-Platonic concept of a "perfect state," stripped of their idealist notions.
(Likewise, Marx shamelessly bootlegged Biblical eschatology, blasphemously changing the Creator for a creature, that is, replacing God with the "proletariat" as the executor of the "final judgment" and an author of the new world.)
Marx himself was a notorious control freak that suffered no back-talking from his minions.
(Likewise, Jim "Jonestown" Jones preached socialism, but taught his disciples to worship and obey him unquestioningly. He had some genuine "will to power" too.)
Petr
2004-10-12 17:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Did I hear my name? Seriously, though, Quantrill has been thoroughly misunderstood. He was fighting in Missouri, where there were no organized Confederate troops. Therefore, the Federals did not consider him a soldier, but an outlaw, and they stated that he would be hanged if captured, not treated like a prisoner of war. Thus, he was forced to fight under the black flag, which means no quarter asked for and none given. Second, the atrocities of the Federals in Missouri were legion, and Quantrill's retaliation must be viewed in that light. Lastly, desperate times call for desperate measures, and Quantrill did what he thought he had to do to drive the invaders from his nation. I am not condoning every action he took, but it is difficult for me to sit in judgement of him. What would [I]you[/I] be willing to do repel invaders that were occupying your homes, raping your women, and destroying your culture? Are you so certain that you wouldn't do the same thing?[/QUOTE]
William Quantrill ,Jesse James, and Frank James were the good guys! They fought the bad guys.
Before you judge those white gentlemen, please read the book: ââ¬ËThe Grey Ghosts of the Confederacy.ââ¬â¢
Another good one was 'Jesse James was my Neighbor.'
2004-10-13 01:41 | User Profile
When I think of Alex Linder I envision a tragic, 40 something, misogynist, working on a bottle of Jack Daniels while tapping away on his computer in the dingy basement of his grandmothers house. A lost soul if ever there was one. He is to be pitied but not taken seriously.