← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Franco
Thread ID: 16810 | Posts: 49 | Started: 2005-02-17
2005-02-17 09:21 | User Profile
VNN made a comment today about Sam Francis that I think is worth talking about, even though it will likely anger some paleoconservatives here:
[url]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/[/url]
Granted, this is a touchy subject for a paleocon board like OD. And yes, Francis just died.
But, by the same token, [I]VNN makes a valid point that needs to be pondered.[/I]
Basically, VNN said that Francis was afraid to "fully name the Jew" re: Francis' mainstream career being damaged. [I know that to be the more-or-less the case, because Francis actually admitted that once, not long ago]. VNN makes a good point about that matter, although again, some of the paleos might not like the way that VNN expressed it.
But just think if, say, KMacD had not written his books, out of fear-for-his-career. See? You never would have read C of C. So that's why I think it is important to ponder the "Sam Francis method of Jew-mention" vs. "other forms of Jew-mention." Is it better to use code-speak when talking about the Jews? I have thought about the matter tonight, deeply, and my conclusion is "no." Whites have a short time in which to save Western culture, and if we tip-toe around the issue of the Jews, we will surely not succeed in saving Western culture. For how much time do we have to save it - 40 years at best? Can we afford to tip-toe around the Jewish Question now? Can we afford to wink-wink about such a serious problem as the Jews?
2005-02-17 09:49 | User Profile
Frankly, I'm at a loss for words. Might you care to give us your opinion on this particularly charming ditty, Franco?
Alex Linder: ...Life is short, as Canny Sammy showed us by dying the other day - [size=4]indecently depriving us of a target[/size].
2005-02-17 11:10 | User Profile
Since I knew Linder had habitually badmouthed "Canny Sammy" (as he called him), I just had to check out what kind of an obituary he would provide. Sure enough, he didn't "disappoint" me:
[url]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/[/url]
[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=3]Pauli Coward Roberts [/SIZE]
"What do the lib- and con-press have in common? Besides being typed by jews working off the same agenda? Well, not much, really. So why does the Girl call them "brownshirts"? It's not accurate. It wasn't funny the first time, and sure as hell isn't the millionth. Don't you find it funny, reader, that not even for variety's sake will a nutless wonder like the Girl call a jew a jew? [B]Life is short, as Canny Sammy showed us by dying the other day - indecently depriving us of a target. Now he's got eternity to think about all the things he "couldn't" say. [/B] Don't put yourself in his position, reader. Live as a man. Speak your mind. Defend your position. If the jews are the problem, then not mentioning them is no kind of solution. "Whether or not you use it, it goes," as the poet says. How will you be remembered? [B]Francis will be rememebered as a winker and a hinter - a man who never told the deep truth because he was afraid of the consequences for his career. In short, he was a career girl, he put his personal interests ahead of the cause, as do all "respectable" paleoconservatives. And that is why they are all, every last one of them, unfit for leadership. [/B] In a better position than 99.99% of the people he'd fain defend, he looked around and wondered why others weren't leading -- i.e., criticizing the jews. Poor Canny. Fate pointed a finger at him, and he blanched and said, "Who, me?" Now he's dead before sixty, the pressure of being one thing and pretending to be something else become too much for his heart to handle. Paleoconservatism isn't the solution, reader, it's part of the problem. It's the solution that, because it is defended by men who, if cowards, are intelligent cowards, makes a plausible, respectable, ineffectual trap for the intelligent, courageous men we need to take the one path that can save us: NO JEWS. JUST RIGHT. The future belongs not to the stupid party, but the White Freedom Party. For men and women who don't flinch from saying what's true for fear of the consequences. Oh, and by the way, we're going to hound you doubly now, Girl. Readers will note that Pauli has adopted more and more VNN rhetorical trappings as the months and years have gone by. Why? Because he knows, just as Canny Sammy did, that we're right in naming the jew as the sole cause of the symptoms we all bemoan. [B]And he hates himself for not daring to call a jew a jew. In other words, he has a guilty conscience. And rightly so. Hope it doesn't kill you, Pauli the Coward, like it did Francis[/B]." [/COLOR]
(See how Linder claims that Francis was afraid "to name the Jew". In fact, just one article re-posted today on "American Renaissance" is enough to prove him wrong; Francis traces the origin of the very word "racism" to a Weimar Jew Magnus Hirschfeld and clearly identifies him as Jewish:
[SIZE=3][B]"The Origins of “Racism”[/B][/SIZE]
[url]http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/02/the_origins_of.php[/url]
Petr
2005-02-17 11:23 | User Profile
Samuel Francis was an erudite, consistently upright, honorable man who defended his fatherland in the best way he saw fit. Alex Linder is merely a wretched pretentious aspiring-demagogue, with a particle of pseudo-literary journalistic cleverness of the type that appeals to the basest drives of vulgarian riffraff. Vulgarian subhumans, unrepresentative of any of the better qualities of the Western-Aryan race, seem to constitute the majority of the so-called 'movement', curiously enough. It must not be forgotten that "Aryan" means, above all else, noble. Alex Linder and his Nihilistic decadence-movement would be effectively dealt with in any real civilization. Any race would be humiliated to have such a creature in its ranks.
2005-02-17 12:07 | User Profile
makes a curtain call:
[size=4][url="http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Francis05/NewsSF021605.html"][size=2][color=#800080]"Stupid, Party of One - Your Coffin is Ready!"[/color][/size][/url][left][size=3][size=2]Canny Sammy Francis' one "original" contribution to American political discourse - a simple phrase that neatly obscured the problem Sammy never quite got around to dealing with. What made Sammy run? The jews... Let me explain: the Republicans are only stupid if you accept their words at face value. Accepting words and motives at face value, and ignoring deeds, is what got America in the mess it's in in the first place. Questioning motives, as the politically triumphant jews Sammy feared do -- as they always do, and and as they never cease doing, and as they always do right out of the chute -- is the only way to fight. The stupid party was Sammy Francis. The party he called stupid wins election after election. But then, by the same token, perhaps Francis wasn't that stupid either. He kept his income high, and all of it produced within the cosy confines of the System that insists against all evidence that race does not exist. At the same time, he kept alive his radical reputation. Ah, now we are seeing his true political genius: having it both ways, while pretending there was no conflict. Even so, as we heard from Sammy through back channels, he "couldn't" say anything about the jews. He would lose his valuable sydicated pulpit if he ever used it to tell the truth about the judeo-System. That's one of those ironies you need a Ph.D. to undertstand, you see. The honest man might say that a doctor who withholds the name of the disease from the patient is a quack. To further confuse matters, Francis used to like to alternate the "can't say that" with the "jews aren't the problem - gentiles who won't stand up to them are the problem!" You see, you nasty plumber, you electrician, you ditch-digger - YOU are the one responsible for standing up the jew, not him with the syndicated column! It's all very clever and confusing, unless you want to reduce it to its essentials, which may be seen easily enough. In political terms, Francis' death is a good thing - no, a very good thing. For the legacy of Francis is failure - complete, utter, unabashed going-backwards for twenty years. Francis as much as any man had the right to the title "leader of the fake opposition." Francis knew that jews were the heart of the problem. Guilt over what he felt he "couldn't" say occasionally led him so far as to claim that, no, in fact jews were not the problem. A man divided against himself cannot stand. So Francis sat down and ate until morbid obesity overcame and killed him. He died of a guilty conscience. Here's some crap from professional jeboo-fellatrix-slash-gloommonger Flemio: In any age, he would have been a remarkable man for the penetration of his mind, his unflinching pursuit of truth ? regardless of current cant or personal consequences ? and the gravity of his style. In our age, he is peerless, and his death represents an irreplaceable loss. Hey, Tonka Tom, de mortuis nil nisi BULLSHIT. The "gravity" of his style merely underlines his manifest failure to address the source of the problems he never did anything but tut-tut-tut about. The man himself admitted there were things he couldn't say. He flinched. You lie. Readers, if you settle for the cowardice of a Sam Francis, by God believe me, you will never get anything better, because they'll leap out of the woodwork to tell you the easy path is the right one. Sam Francis flinched for years, for decades, for, as it turned out, his entire life. Damn, I'm glad I'm not him. St. Peter: "So, you knew jews were the problem, but you feared to write it, even though you were uniquely positioned to see the fact, and uniquely empowered to print it." Canny Sammy, feeling more clammy than canny: "Uh...uh...uh...yeah, I mean, uh, I mean, it's not my job to put my job on the line!" "Sorry, son, wrong answer. Fighting the jews was our litmus test. You failed. NEXT!" For fear of what others will think (the English disease), for fear of career consequences (middle-class disease), for fear of standing athwart the crowd, for FEAR OF THE JEWS, you will never get the truth about the jews behind America's disintegration from the paleoconservatives. The paleoconservatives never have won anything, and never will win anything. In fact, in their heart they believe that winning is a sin. If that's how you feel, please leave VNN forthwith. But if you want to live, and you know that Christian mock-profundities voiced by male-cunt library-losers lead nowhere, then come with us.[/size] [/size]
[/left]
[/size]
2005-02-17 12:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Intrepid]Frankly, I'm at a loss for words. Might you care to give us your opinion on this particularly charming ditty, Franco?
Alex Linder: ...Life is short, as Canny Sammy showed us by dying the other day - [size=4]indecently depriving us of a target[/size].[/QUOTE]
I posted my post before VNN wrote that other part about Francis.
But, despite the....insensitive tone of VNN's words, the point is still made. I didn't write VNN's words. I am just saying that VNN makes a good point about naming-the-Jew. There is no delicate, easy way to name-the-Jew. You just have to name-the-Jew in a matter-of-fact way. That is what VNN means. Ocassional, sly references to "Likkudniks" really doesn't do it strongly enough. That is what VNN meant. VNN means "name-the-Jew and do it often and do it matter-of-factly." And I agree with that part.
2005-02-17 12:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Since I knew Linder had habitually badmouthed "Canny Sammy" (as he called him), I just had to check out what kind of an obituary he would provide. Sure enough, he didn't "disappoint" me:
[url]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/[/url]
[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=3]Pauli Coward Roberts [/SIZE]
"What do the lib- and con-press have in common? Besides being typed by jews working off the same agenda? Well, not much, really. So why does the Girl call them "brownshirts"? It's not accurate. It wasn't funny the first time, and sure as hell isn't the millionth. Don't you find it funny, reader, that not even for variety's sake will a nutless wonder like the Girl call a jew a jew? [B]Life is short, as Canny Sammy showed us by dying the other day - indecently depriving us of a target. Now he's got eternity to think about all the things he "couldn't" say. [/B] Don't put yourself in his position, reader. Live as a man. Speak your mind. Defend your position. If the jews are the problem, then not mentioning them is no kind of solution. "Whether or not you use it, it goes," as the poet says. How will you be remembered? [B]Francis will be rememebered as a winker and a hinter - a man who never told the deep truth because he was afraid of the consequences for his career. In short, he was a career girl, he put his personal interests ahead of the cause, as do all "respectable" paleoconservatives. And that is why they are all, every last one of them, unfit for leadership. [/B] In a better position than 99.99% of the people he'd fain defend, he looked around and wondered why others weren't leading -- i.e., criticizing the jews. Poor Canny. Fate pointed a finger at him, and he blanched and said, "Who, me?" Now he's dead before sixty, the pressure of being one thing and pretending to be something else become too much for his heart to handle. Paleoconservatism isn't the solution, reader, it's part of the problem. It's the solution that, because it is defended by men who, if cowards, are intelligent cowards, makes a plausible, respectable, ineffectual trap for the intelligent, courageous men we need to take the one path that can save us: NO JEWS. JUST RIGHT. The future belongs not to the stupid party, but the White Freedom Party. For men and women who don't flinch from saying what's true for fear of the consequences. Oh, and by the way, we're going to hound you doubly now, Girl. Readers will note that Pauli has adopted more and more VNN rhetorical trappings as the months and years have gone by. Why? Because he knows, just as Canny Sammy did, that we're right in naming the jew as the sole cause of the symptoms we all bemoan. [B]And he hates himself for not daring to call a jew a jew. In other words, he has a guilty conscience. And rightly so. Hope it doesn't kill you, Pauli the Coward, like it did Francis[/B]." [/COLOR]
(See how Linder claims that Francis was afraid "to name the Jew". In fact, just one article re-posted today on "American Renaissance" is enough to prove him wrong; Francis traces the origin of the very word "racism" to a Weimar Jew Magnus Hirschfeld and clearly identifies him as Jewish:
[SIZE=3][B]"The Origins of ââ¬ÅRacismââ¬Â[/B][/SIZE]
[url]http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/02/the_origins_of.php[/url]
Petr[/QUOTE]
See my related posts about this matter: [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?p=101905#post101905[/url]
2005-02-17 12:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Intrepid]Frankly, I'm at a loss for words. Might you care to give us your opinion on this particularly charming ditty, Franco?
Alex Linder: ...Life is short, as Canny Sammy showed us by dying the other day - [size=4]indecently depriving us of a target[/size].[/QUOTE]
Do you see what I mean, though? What if KMacD had decided not to write C of C due to fear that his career might be hurt? It is an important point, no matter you frame it. Granted, I would prbably not use the same words that VNN used to describe Sam Francis [especially after he died], but, nonetheless, you hopefully see VNN's point: either we all name-the-Jew, regularly and quite clearly, or Western culture will not be saved. There is no polite way to say it.
2005-02-17 12:50 | User Profile
Francis did more in his short lifetime than a thousand Linders could in a thousand years.
F... Screw Linder.
2005-02-17 13:30 | User Profile
Pure madness... :mad:
2005-02-17 13:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][color=indigo] The future belongs not to the stupid party, but the White Freedom Party.[/color] [/QUOTE] LOL! Alex Linder and his four pals are going to take over America...but first, Linder is going to eat his peanut butter and jelly sandwich (no crust) that his Grandma dutifully prepares for him everyday for lunch and delivers to his "Aryan command headquarters" located in her own basement.
2005-02-17 13:57 | User Profile
Franco,
Granted, this is a touchy subject for a paleocon board like OD. And yes, Francis just died.
True enough. Let's give this a rest for a couple of days so as to allow the Great Man to be buried before we reopen this particular can of worms.
"fully name the Jew"
Thanks.
2005-02-17 15:14 | User Profile
Consolidated into this one thread.
2005-02-17 16:31 | User Profile
People now expect the outrageous from Alex, and he is fast becoming a prisoner of those expectations.
I think, however, that what Linder's detractors would have preferred him to do here - be a hypocrite and recant everything he'd said about Sam Francis while he was alive - would've been just as vile, for different reasons.
I want to stress here to certain very vocal Christians and Francis fans that the Bible frowns on gossip and slander, and that no one is forcing you to post Linder's comments here the day after Sam Francis has died. Don't cluck your tongues at the incivility surrounding Sam's passing while merrily contributing to it by parading the worst examples of it on Francis-friendly outside forums like this.
2005-02-17 16:52 | User Profile
Did anyone expect a classier response?
Alex spent too much time file-clerking for the boozy Bob Tyrell--that Goebbels-Mencken wordsmithery needs heart and passion to work at all.
The Hollywood Nazis marginalize themselves ever more tightly into an ideological ghetto. The ascendancy of the Jew in America would be impossible without the degeneracy of the WASP.
No Goldberg without a Buckley. No Wolfowitz without a deracinated mediocrity of George Bush, Junior's stature...
2005-02-17 17:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]People now expect the outrageous from Alex, and he is fast becoming a prisoner of those expectations.
I think, however, that what Linder's detractors would have preferred him to do here - be a hypocrite and recant everything he'd said about Sam Francis while he was alive - would've been just as vile, for different reasons.[/QUOTE]
Actually, the decent thing to do in this situation would be to just keep quiet. I suspect that if Alex Linder were to die, most of his critics in "moderate" racialist and paleoconservative circles would not be gloating and making light of the fact. They wouldn't hypocritically say "I take back every critical thing I've said about him," but they wouldn't be declaring the event to be cause for celebration and self-satisfied clucking either.
2005-02-17 17:09 | User Profile
And bear in mind that he now claims to be [I]Candidate [/I] Linder.
As a consensus-builder, he's approaching Gary Coleman status. With Charles Manson's Q rating.
2005-02-17 17:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]And bear in mind that he now claims to be [I]Candidate [/I] Linder.
As a consensus-builder, he's approaching Gary Coleman status. With Charles Manson's Q rating.[/QUOTE]
Linder is obviously an intelligent man, so I'm sure he realizes that these sort of antics will never build a consensus or launch a political career. To paraphrase his own argument, his "candidacy" is a failure only if you take his claim of candidacy seriously. I think that now as before, Linder's goal is to remain a big fish in a very small pond of loyal followers. Building a consensus and reaching out to people who agree with you on 50% (or even 90%) but disagree on the balance isn't pleasant, especially when one has a big ego to feed. So for many self-styled kingfish in the WN movement, it's preferable to have 50-100 loyal, unquestioning yes-men than ten or a hundred times as many people who generally support you but disagree strongly on any number of issues (ideological or tactical).
I sense that Linder's rather strong dislike of Francis is due to the fact that Francis was his polar opposite. I said on another thread that Francis's main strength was that he was one of the only people who both racialists and disgruntled Republicans could communicate with. Neither group is strong enough numerically or politically to make any headway without the other, so it's crucial to have people with a foot in both doors. Francis bridged the rhetorical and ideological gap between Reagan Republicans who thought that Reagan was too soft on "controversial" issues like immigration and the ex-Klansman types, and he politely berated Pat Buchanan for failing to do the same with the latter group (as most racialists refuse to do with respect to the former).
2005-02-17 19:41 | User Profile
So let me get this straight: Dr. Francis is dead, and Alex Linder is alive? Who's running things up there?
2005-02-17 20:01 | User Profile
What a crappy website. That's the second time I've been there and I promise it's the last time I'll go back.
They do nothing for their cause by appealing to the lowest common denominator. Who would ever take seriously the claims of a group that attacks a recently deceased man?
They have no point because they are wholly not credible.
2005-02-17 20:18 | User Profile
I have about as much respect for Linder as I do for Ariel Sharon, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and the membership of the North American Man-Boy Love Association. If they were all on a ship with me, I'd sink that ship and drown myself, so that we could be rid of them all. To Hell with Linder! He needs to shut his filthy, disgusting mouth! He is a counter-productive embarassment. He might as well be a Mossad agent for all the good, and the harm, he does our people. If I never hear his name again, it will be too soon.
2005-02-17 20:36 | User Profile
If "gay marriage" ever takes off in the Midwest, perhaps Linder and Covington could get hitched....
2005-02-17 21:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Linder is obviously an intelligent man, so I'm sure he realizes that these sort of antics will never build a consensus or launch a political career. To paraphrase his own argument, his "candidacy" is a failure only if you take his claim of candidacy seriously. I think that now as before, Linder's goal is to remain a big fish in a very small pond of loyal followers. Building a consensus and reaching out to people who agree with you on 50% (or even 90%) but disagree on the balance isn't pleasant, especially when one has a big ego to feed. So for many self-styled kingfish in the WN movement, it's preferable to have 50-100 loyal, unquestioning yes-men than ten or a hundred times as many people who generally support you but disagree strongly on any number of issues (ideological or tactical).
I sense that Linder's rather strong dislike of Francis is due to the fact that Francis was his polar opposite. I said on another thread that Francis's main strength was that he was one of the only people who both racialists and disgruntled Republicans could communicate with. Neither group is strong enough numerically or politically to make any headway without the other, so it's crucial to have people with a foot in both doors. Francis bridged the rhetorical and ideological gap between Reagan Republicans who thought that Reagan was too soft on "controversial" issues like immigration and the ex-Klansman types, and he politely berated Pat Buchanan for failing to do the same with the latter group (as most racialists refuse to do with respect to the former).[/QUOTE] I agree with u to a point, in that I believe that Linder and his ilk enjoy their status as "mini-fuhrers" amongst their pathetic flocks. However, I don't agree with you that Linder is a) intelligent or b) talented.
Let's look at this objectively: "VNN" is a joke. Its a hodge podge of insufferably stupid "cartoons and promos" (some of which were crudely drawn with pencil on notebook paper), and the sometimes drunken (but occassionally witty) rantings of Alex Linder and his friends about the glory of the Third Reich, as well as gutter nonsense with titles like, "why niggers smell like sh*t". The website's forum consists of 15-30 guys who regularly talk trash and complain incessantly about their life circumstances and fantasize about dispatching Jews en masse.
Now, if Alex Linder were a 20 year old college kid, I'd say that "VNN" is still stupid and juvenile, but I'd understand it...but Alex Linder is close to 40 years old and as far as I can tell is unemployed. Let's face facts, Alex Linder is a 4 star loser by any measuring stick.
It would be one thing if Linder was a regular working guy who maintained a professional website that was well done, entertaining, as well as edgy and honest without being vulgar...but this is not the case...the guy is nothing but a sad, irrelevant loser who prides himself as some sort of keen intellect because a handful of other losers call him "leader".
This "White Freedom Party" foolishness must be considered in the same vein as the website itself. I mean, c'mon...the very name brings to mind that scene in the "Blues Brothers" where the obviously homo Nazi costume fetishist is giving a "speech" under police protection to a crowd that is 100% hostile. Think about these antics, AY...and then think about the fact that a grown man is engaging in them. Once you do that, you really can't feel anything towards Linder except to feel sorry for him.
2005-02-17 21:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]To Hell with Linder! He needs to shut his filthy, disgusting mouth! He is a counter-productive embarassment. He might as well be a Mossad agent for all the good, and the harm, he does our people. If I never hear his name again, it will be too soon.[/QUOTE]Martin basically thought he was a Mossad agent didn't he, re TGMNN? His behavior as a classic agent provocetuer, bent on sowing division in, marginalizing the nationalist movement, and attacking its most effective apologists like Francis sure fits the classic government AP profile, as do a lot of things - where he gets his money, etc.
Of course a lot of people do fit the profile in ways at times, Martin included. Still I think he might have been on to something with this TGMNN thing. As far as I know Linder has been consistent - consistently wrong. :ph34r: We should learn spmething from the German NPD episode. I'd say its quite likely the same way here with many of the top figures in the NA, VNN, and KKK org's, in fact general knowledge. All we lack are the names.
You have to use your head a little bit. "Ye shall know them by their fruits". And no one's fruit is more rancid than Alex's.
2005-02-17 21:54 | User Profile
What's very ironic is that Alex Linder and Sam Francis both shared a spot on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list called "Hatewatch", listing the top 40 prominent figures in the "White Supremacist" movement.
2005-02-17 22:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]What's very ironic is that Alex Linder and Sam Francis both shared a spot on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list called "Hatewatch", listing the top 40 prominent figures in the "White Supremacist" movement.[/QUOTE]Big deal. Michael Hill, Jerod Taylor, and the "anti-granny" head of the SCLV, in other words practically anyone actively to the right of Bill Kristol - are there.
2005-02-18 00:03 | User Profile
Alex Linder has viciously attacked both Jared Taylor and Sam Francis and probably many more great men and women. The fact is that Linder can not even hope to accomplish even 1% of what either of these men have done.
Linder is so marginalized, with his crude Aryan Newspaper and Aryan Nazi Ex-Con political party, that the only thing he does is lash out against real white men that are courageously fighting to defend the white race. As I understand it, even the other extreme groups like White Revolution, NSM, and National Alliance have all denounced Linder as the fruitcake he is. All Linder can do is fume in a jealous rage over real men, he can never hope to be like.
The sad part is that people like Linder are like wet dreams for the ADL & SPLC. Linder will keep Morris Dees and Foxman raking in money and providing ammunition for these groups to attack all proud white.
2005-02-18 01:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Esoterist]Samuel Francis was an erudite, consistently upright, honorable man who defended his fatherland in the best way he saw fit. Alex Linder is merely a wretched pretentious aspiring-demagogue, with a particle of pseudo-literary journalistic cleverness of the type that appeals to the basest drives of vulgarian riffraff. Vulgarian subhumans, unrepresentative of any of the better qualities of the Western-Aryan race, seem to constitute the majority of the so-called 'movement', curiously enough. It must not be forgotten that "Aryan" means, above all else, noble. Alex Linder and his Nihilistic decadence-movement would be effectively dealt with in any real civilization. Any race would be humiliated to have such a creature in its ranks.[/QUOTE] Exactly! Alex Linder is neither noble, nor reasonable. He is a detestable microführer who would rather associate with an equally dysfuctional punk and traitor to his folk. Even before the strange Lindermiller association however, it was pretty clear that VNN represented the worst decadence that masquerades as "racialism", but is, in reality, nothing more than human dysfunction and a pathetic caricature of hollywood racism.
2005-02-18 02:26 | User Profile
Damn, they didn't even wait for the body to cool down, as if VNN felt compelled out of some perverted sense of duty to dance on Sam Francis' coffin.
2005-02-18 02:26 | User Profile
Granted, Linder could have been nicer in this case. In fact, I told him so.
However, Linder's point must be noted: merely winking about shadowy "Likkudniks" once a month does not teach Sally Shops-A-Lot about the real problem, does it? Answer: no. Sally will keep on thinking about....whatever the Sally Shops-A-Lots think about, e.g. gameshows, toilet products and that nifty new tuna casserole recipe. In other words, important stuff [sigh].
Linder's point is also "why are people worshipping Sam Francis when they should worship William Pierce instead, who never pulled his punches?" That is an important point.
So, say what you will about Linder's brass-knuckle tactics, his message must be noted and understood. As I have said, Whites have about 40 years to save Western culture. Can they do it via the Sam Francis types?
Again, let us hopefully focus on Linder's message and not necessarily the exact words of it.
In fact, re: Western culture, to be blunt, I question whether Western culture can be saved now. It may already be too late. Too many gentile people sat on their asses and said nothing about the Jews from about 1955 onward. The onus is[B] on them [/B] if Western culture disappears.
2005-02-18 02:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE]So Francis sat down and ate until morbid obesity overcame and killed him. He died of a guilty conscience.[/QUOTE]
W-O-W.
All I can say in response is, at least Francis paid his own bills. At least he paid for his own food. LInder declared bankruptcy. Talk about a financial "swindler', he did what 95% of Jews didn't: steal money.
What a loser.
2005-02-18 03:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=88mmFlaK]Exactly! Alex Linder is neither noble, nor reasonable. He is a detestable microführer who would rather associate with an equally dysfuctional punk and traitor to his folk. Even before the strange Lindermiller association however, it was pretty clear that VNN represented the worst decadence that masquerades as "racialism", but is, in reality, nothing more than human dysfunction and a pathetic caricature of hollywood racism.[/QUOTE] Beautifully put. I recognize the point made by others about the necessity of telling the whole truth. But at the time of a man's passing, it is time to say prayers, and show respect for the sake of his loved ones.
And as for saving our culture, we can only do so if we turn to the Lord. We need God's help for this one. And there will be no divine blessing, if we follow the way of Alex Linder.
I want to put it straight. The ultimate enemy is not the Jews. It is the spirit of evil behind the Jews, and that is Satan. But as surely as the Jews are the children of Satan, so is Alex Linder. Both are going to hell. And both would love to have you join them.
2005-02-18 05:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Granted, Linder could have been nicer in this case. In fact, I told him so.
However, Linder's point must be noted: merely winking about shadowy "Likkudniks" once a month does not teach Sally Shops-A-Lot about the real problem, does it? Answer: no. Sally will keep on thinking about....whatever the Sally Shops-A-Lots think about, e.g. gameshows, toilet products and that nifty new tuna casserole recipe. In other words, important stuff [sigh]. Sally Shops-A-Lot doesn't want to know about the real problem. Sally Shops-A-Lot doesn't read anything "controversial" and would never have heard of, or read, Sam Francis, no matter what he said or wrote.
Sally Shops-A-Lot will be on our side, when all her friends and neighbors and the people who she relies on for her opinion are on our side. She'll switch sides without even knowing that she has done so, and she'll never understand how someone like Sam Francis ever had anything to do with her switch.
Linder's point is also "why are people worshipping Sam Francis when they should worship William Pierce instead, who never pulled his punches?" That is an important point.
Who's talking about "worship"?
I'm not knocking Pierce, but he was marginalized from day one, whereas Sam Francis had a real opportunity to reach millions of whites who would never give William Pierce the time of day.
You've got to be realistic and use the tools that you have, not the tools you wish you had.
So, say what you will about Linder's brass-knuckle tactics, his message must be noted and understood. As I have said, Whites have about 40 years to save Western culture. Can they do it via the Sam Francis types?
Can they do it via Alex Linder types?
Again, let us hopefully focus on Linder's message and not necessarily the exact words of it.
In fact, re: Western culture, to be blunt, I question whether Western culture can be saved now. It may already be too late. Too many gentile people sat on their asses and said nothing about the Jews from about 1955 onward. The onus is[B] on them [/B] if Western culture disappears.[/QUOTE]Alex behaving like a rancid Jew, dancing on Sam Francis' grave before the body is even cold, isn't going to save Western Culture, either. One might argue, in fact, that Alex's behavior is proof that Western Culture is in fact already dead.
Alex latches on to one or two truths - such as the necessity of naming the Jew - and then he takes it to an absurd extreme and ignores all other truths, such as simple civility and courtesy.
Alex by nature is an extremist. He isn't stupid, and he isn't an agent provocateur (IMO); he just doesn't have the mental flexibility or inclination to try to balance or syncretize competing truths - like for instance, the truth that one can catch more flys with honey than with vinegar.
As has been said elsewhere: Sam Francis was a theoretician, not an activist. He wasn't pursuing the same goals or using the same methods that one can expect of an activist, and therefore it is absurd to judge Francis by the standards one would judge an activist.
Alex is an activist, and activism is all that he understands.
What would have been accomplished by Francis "naming the Jew"? He loses all access to the mainstream media, and thus, loses all remaining chances of reaching new people who are ready for his message. In other words, he becomes a marginalized loser with a microscopic audience of "yes men", which is all Alex Linder is.
We can't have everything we want, right away. Impatience is a sure sign of immaturity, and Alex has impatience and immaturity in spades.
Sam Francis was moving people in the right direction - that is what matters, not whether he measured up to some purist's notion of ideological purity.
One can criticize Sam Francis for not naming the Jew, or for Jared Taylor for cooperating with Jews, or others for not coming clean on racial or related issues, without rejecting them altogether and without denying the good that they are in fact doing, by opening people up to our point of view and acting as a "half way house to white nationalism" as some have put it.
What is wrong with saying "I wish Sam Francis would have been more upfront about Jews" while at the same time acknowledging the good he has done our cause, and doing so in calm and respectful and rational terms?
We have to have different types of people - theoreticians and activists and supporters - and we have to have different, sometimes opposing, schools and camps and points of view - all working for the same general goals but using different methods. There isn't "one true road" that all must walk; there's only one destination, but there's more than one road to get there, and more than one pace that people will set to get there.
Don't castigate everyone who is slower than you are; just be glad if they are heading in the right direction, and encourage them to continue. Shouting obscenities at them isn't going to encourage them to listen to your advice.
Alex I am afraid is lacking in certain social skills, which undermine his efforts. Unfortunately, he has turned his difficiencies into virtues, in his own mind, to justify his actions to himself.
2005-02-18 06:13 | User Profile
You guys are missing the point...Sam Francis DID name the Jew...which is (in part) why Linder's invective regarding the man's death is so offensive...its just that Francis took the Jew to task for what the Jew is actually culpable for. Linder, on the other hand, "names the Jew" as being accountable for everything from the fact that Linder suffers from hemmrhoids to the fact that Linder is a no-count loser who hasn't worked for a living in years. Do u see the aggregiousness of Linder's invective? I'm sure you do.
2005-02-18 06:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]Sally Shops-A-Lot will be on our side, when all her friends and neighbors and the people who she relies on for her opinion are on our side. She'll switch sides without even knowing that she has done so, and she'll never understand how someone like Sam Francis ever had anything to do with her switch. [/QUOTE]
Brilliant.
That's EXACTLY RIGHT.
We face a marketing problem, and we should approach the problem like it's just another deal - with a cold head and a steel eye fixed on the bottom line.
Our marketing pitch to Sally must not be to the intellect, precisely because Sally has no intellect. We have to play on Sally's need for the famous "three Ss" - sex, security, and self-esteem. Our pitch must be emotional.
And here's the main point - our emotional pitch must also involve stealth. Our marketing attack MUST take into account the fact that Sally has a conditioned doublethink response that decades of Jewish marketing instilled in her. The Jews covered the frontal attack route totally. Even mentioning codewords like "Jew" will trigger Sally's doublethink response and she'll become completely impervious to our message. Everything associated with white pride and self identity has been branded - through decades of all-pervasive Kosher marketing - as markers of low social status. She'll instinctively avoid, say, Nazi symbols like the plague. A frontal attack is therefore marketing suicide. It's just a non-starter, folks.
Our attack must be much more finessed than that. We need to adopt stealth methods that can fly in under Sally's conditioned doublethink response and deliver their payload without Sally even being aware of it. Sam Francis and Jared Tayolor occupied this niche, and quite successfully, IMHO. Many came in through the door they opened, prompted by the messages they planted. No doubt they didn't get the marketing pitch right every time, but at least guys like Sam Francis asked the basic marketing questions, unlike Linider with his bumbling blacksmitf approach to what is a very delicate marketing connundrum. We need to build on success stories like Sam Francis, and exclude entirely LOSER tactics like Linder.
As they tell you in B-school, feed success, starve failure.
This is just another marketing problem, people. Forget what's right and what's wrong for moment and start thinking in terms of what works and what doesn't work. Start thinking in terms of selling a product - a product that our competition has managed to smear so totally in the public mind that most folks are conditioned to sniff at even the mention of it. We face a huge marketing hurdle with limited resources. We can succeed, but we have to play it smart.
Frankly, the core marketing essence of our problem is so obvious it shouldn't require repeating to anybody who's gotten far enough in their own mental liberation to find themselves posting on OD, but this seems to be a basic point Linder and his ilk can't get through their hardened skulls.
We must adopt winning Jewish marketing methods, and put into circulation a large number of little memes that chip away at Jewish power. We must eschew LOSER marketing methods that consume our marketing budget and result only in increased consumer aversion to our core message. It's as if none of the proponents of the "Name the Jew" approach have any idea that PR is a science. Many brilliant people spent their careers studying exactly how to manipulate our little Sally's pea brain, and the fact is they know alot about Sally's emotional levers and they're very adapt at manipulating them.
Franco: take an introductory course in marketing and then talk to me about it. Really, man, your ignorance of even the most basic B-school concepts is starting to irritate me. Get educated about how the real world works before you go shooting your mouth off about your betters, like Sam Francis.
2005-02-18 08:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Franco: take an introductory course in marketing and then talk to me about it. Really, man, your ignorance of even the most basic B-school concepts is starting to irritate me. Get educated about how the real world works before you go shooting your mouth off about your betters, like Sam Francis. ______[/QUOTE]
[I][At the risk of dragging this matter out just after Francis' death, which I know offends some people]:[/I]
Well, Walter, that's a two-way street. Different political/racial approaches can reach different people.
But can you just imagine, just for a second, if, since 1955, the top paleocon writers[I] regularly mentioned in print [/I] that the Soviet Union was Jewy not just in one way but in several ways:
1) it was a Jewish book [[I]Das Kapital[/I]] the turned the part-Jew Lenin into a full-fledged Marxist;
2) the Bolsheviks were mostly Jews;
3) another key player, Trotsky, a former Menshevik, was also Jewish
So, in other words, if not for Jews, the Soviet Union [and the Cold War; and Cuba and North Korea since the Soviets exported Marxism] [B]never would have become reality. [/B] Wow! Not good for Hymie! No, no, no! Public talk of that sort all through the 1950s/1960s by paleocon writers could have led to...well....who knows? At the very least a much healthier and more-aware America.
Now, let's think a minute: which top paleocon writers mentioned that above fact, [B]on a regular basis[/B], in the 1950s and 1960s? Answer: none. Why not? Good question, because the Jews were significantly less powerful then than they are today. There was not much stopping them, especially in the 1950s.
My point: call me a whacko, Walter, but it sounds to me like the paleos have no room to toss spitballs over which type of tactics are the best [i.e. low-key vs. harsh tactics]. The paleocon record for Jew-mentioning [i.e. mentioning Western culture's key problem] is not very good.
I will shut up about this matter now.
2005-02-18 09:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco][I][But can you just imagine, just for a second, if, since 1955, the top paleocon writers regularly mentioned in print that the Soviet Union was Jewy not just in one way but in several ways: ---[/QUOTE]
I can imagine a lot. But imaginings don't win the day.
My point is to deal with reality instead of engaging in a sort of historical fantasy football, as you're doing here.
You seem to have a need to be right, Franco. But it isn't about being right. It is about winning.
2005-02-18 09:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=heritagelost]Alex Linder has viciously attacked both Jared Taylor and Sam Francis and probably many more great men and women. The fact is that Linder can not even hope to accomplish even 1% of what either of these men have done.
Linder does not seek to preserve, protect and/or defend Western civilization, or its European-descended people. Linder just wants a career, of sorts, and perhaps enough "fame"/social prestige amongst low-brow, female fascists to be able to occasionally cajole a few of them into his bed, no doubt. Actually devoting his life to a higher purpose, say in the manner of Dr. William Pierce, is simply not something that would occur to him, anymore than composing the symphonies of Bethoven would occur to your crack-addled, Negro street urchin with a 400 word vocabulary. Linder is much more interested in where his next case of beer and his new porno tape is coming from (why, from the donations to "VNN" and the the "White Freedom Party," silly), and having his ex-con drinking buddies all shout "Sieg Heil" really loudly in his grandama's basement, when she's out shopping for the food Linder eats and the paper he uses to wipe his other end with, since he's not capable of providing these things for himself (granny gets upset when she hears all that yelling going on just below her bedroom, but sometimes they do it when she's home anyway, 'caue Linder doesn't really give a shit about his mealticket).
[QUOTE=heritagelost]As I understand it, even the other extreme groups like White Revolution, NSM, and National Alliance have all denounced Linder as the fruitcake he is.
This is true, but I just wanted to mention that even though the [url=http://www.natvan.com]National Alliance[/url] (of which I have been a somewhat active member since 1996) functions as a more-or-less explicitly pan-Aryan national socialist organization (albeit without ever having formally adopted such an ideology as the official platform), I wouldn't really put us in the same category "White Revolution"/The Billy Roper Fan Club, or those repressed homosexuals and out-right morons in the so-called "National Socialist Movement." We are a degree or three more serious and relevant than those goofball groups, despite the extremity of our position along the contemporary American political spectrum.
[QUOTE=heritagelost]The sad part is that people like Linder are like wet dreams for the ADL & SPLC. Linder will keep Morris Dees and Foxman raking in money and providing ammunition for these groups to attack all proud white.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps Linder has already found that psuedo-career his worthless, irresponsible. indolent impulses cause him to yearn for....
2005-02-18 10:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]Alex I am afraid is lacking in certain social skills, which undermine his efforts. Unfortunately, he has turned his difficiencies into virtues, in his own mind, to justify his actions to himself.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like an astute observation to me.
2005-02-18 10:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Sounds like an astute observation to me.[/QUOTE]
We seem to get a lot of astute observations from grep14w these days.
2005-02-18 11:23 | User Profile
I'll toss in my two cents as well. First of all, I agree that it was terrible for Linder to dance on Francis' grave like that. Not cool at all. Unlike most people here I've never read much of Francis' writings, but I know enough about the man to know that he deserved a hell of a lot better than Linder's grotesque little "elegy." As has already been pointed out, Francis did name the Jew -- and he did so in a much more civilized and effective manner than Linder ever has -- but even if he hadn't, that still wouldn't have been reason to piss on his grave as if Ariel Sharon were buried in it.
Regarding the controversy over "naming the Jew," my position leans toward that of Franco, though with certain reservations. I think one's message, and particularly its mode of delivery, should be tailor-made to one's audience to the extent possible.
When dealing with the general public, I believe that naming Israel and its lobby is, at this point, much more productive than pointing the finger at the Tribe in general. I've found through experience that speaking about the Israeli lobby and its stranglehold on US foreign policy is an excellent "gateway" topic. So is the closely-related topic of neocon "Israeli loyalists" who are currently sitting in many influential US government positions.
When addressing those who are already racially aware but who are not yet privy to the Jewish issue -- a category that will undoubtedly increase in number on its own, given increasing minority populations -- I think the Jew should be named outright. Ears that are already open to politically incorrect talk about blacks and invaders from Mexico are more than likely capable of digesting negative information about another so-called "minority group."
In all cases, it's important to present the message calmly but confidently, in a civil manner, and with facts at the ready to back up one's claims if challenged. Kevin MacDonald is perhaps the perfect example of this approach, although his work was largely academic and was probably never intended (or expected) to see widespread public distribution.
2005-02-18 14:08 | User Profile
I most definitely agree with you Angler. I've learned the hard way. For instance in regard to feminazism, I used to regard feminazi bashing as a sport. And while I enjoyed watching their faces turn red and smoke billow out of their ears, I didn't win anyone over to my point of view. Now, I take a much more subtle approach, with the sporting aspect put aside. With this method, I can actually make some points, and even win some over.
The same here. Take a thoughtful approach, and you can convince many. For instance, in regard to the Mexican invasion, start out with the socio-economic costs. I've had black co-workers readily agree with me that immigration should be cut back. They know good and well that Mexicans are taking jobs that are now no longer available to blacks. I'm no fan of blacks, mind you, but if the blacks are up in arms about the Mexican invasion, we can use that as cover against those who want to call us "racist" for opposing it.
2005-02-18 14:12 | User Profile
Robert,
That's a good point. The bottom line with most folks is simply "money talks, b.s. walks."
2005-02-22 02:42 | User Profile
from the Madonna (yes, the pop-slut one in search of any form of attention possible) of WNism:
[size=4][url="http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/02/free_republic_v.php"][color=#0000ff][QUOTE]
[size=4][/url][url="http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/02/free_republic_v.php"][color=#0000ff]Of Middle-Aged Cynics Feeding Smug Young Fools: Canny Sammy's Unlovely Legacy[/color][/url][url="http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/02/free_republic_v.php"] [left][size=3]"He was a fine writer and a brilliant scholar, who had the courage of his convictions," [lied] Patrick Buchanan of Canny Sammy Francis. He didn't have the courage of his convictions about jews. No man can deny that, but so far at least three have tried. Here on Free Republic's [/url][url="http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/02/sam_francis_col.php"][color=#0000ff]reaction[/color][/url][url="http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/02/free_republic_v.php"], a quick yanking. "Sam's great value...was his unflinching disregard of contemporary taboos. He was always prepared to say the unsayable." Again, that is a lie. Brimelow is concerned to create the perception that his team, uh, let's call them the Wind Sox, presents genuine opposition to the powers that be. Note that Francis died childless. Why? "If they won't fight, they won't ," as some general said. Francis was a very cynical man; a fat gilt boy, not made for this world's pain, unless it was heavily buttered. He was no stupid party. He knew where to pull his punch most effectively; kind of a reverse Mike Tyson, if you remember his remark about hitting women. The idiots at AmRunt are the stupid parties. Would anyone contend Canny was brilliant? Give me one coinage, one phrase, one concept he's responsible for that anybody remembers TODAY let alone ten years from now. There's more value in chapter two of Mein Kampf than anything paleoconservatism combined ever wrote, let alone that Sammy with 80 years to work with never produced anything a tenth as analytically useful. Let alone did anything with his knowledge. But here we verge into satire - expecting a paleocon to do something. Paleocons don't do, they rue. Hey! That line right there is apter and cleverer than anything Sam Francis came up with in his entire career. More [/url][url="http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/02/author_and_colu.php"][color=#0000ff]here[/color][/url][url="http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/02/free_republic_v.php"]. Canny wrote a good column. That's the only honest defense of him that can be made. What always struck us as most characteristic of his writing was his arm's length tone. He always worded carefully to make sure you knew that HE was not part of the group, say, defending Matt Hale, but that he was an analyst, making a point. That "point" was never that the stupid party is actually a controlled party, much less the naming of the controllers. In other words, Sammy was a cynic for profit, just like the Republicans he libeled "stupid." Politicians who win time after time may be bought, may be corrupt, may be sellouts - but they're sure as hell not stupid. Did I say Sammy was a coward and a cynic? Then let me repeat it. He was a coward and a cynic. And that is why he didn't reproduce, and that is why his legacy is the whine of the ineffectual. His lukewarm spirit is what I'll remember about his words. "Johnson, you need to decide whether you're a big man or a little man." Each VNN reader must make that decision for himself. Are you big or little? Is pretending to do something good enough? If so, then you're fit to be a consumer of conservatives. Sam Francis was as unAmerican in spirit, as unSouthern in spirit, as it is possible to get. He had nothing in common with the firebloods who won the revolution and nearly the second one. VNN calls on hypocritical jew-promoter Jared Taylor to take down the quotation he filched from Jefferson. You are unworthy of it, Quack Taylor, for you do fear the truth about the jews. If we at VNN played any small part in shaming Francis for what HE HIMSELF KNEW TO BE HIS COWARDICE, we are glad. We will continue to point out that his obesity was due to his emotional problems, and those were the result of his cowardly acceptance that there were things he "couldn't" say. This combination killed him. Contrast Pierce and Francis. Did Francis ever cite Pierce and the evidence he adduced about jewish control? To say it is to laugh. Sammy didn't have the balls of a shrew in that regard. The difference between a clockwork organge and a real orange. As a coda, consider this, and see where the logic falls. 1) Sammy can't tell the truth about jews, because then he would lose his syndicated pulpit. That was his line, if you caught him behind doors. Turn around, and you read his defenders saying, 2) Sammy "could have been editor of a newspaper or president of a conservative think tank if he towed the line and held back the truth." Hmm...sounds like Sammy foolishly passed up a great chance to educate the public by not pulling even more punches than he did! Or maybe the myopes and fools and cowards and quacks are right: Sammy pulled EXACTLY the right number of punches. What do you think, reader? Is the expert pulling of punches the definition of conservatism, or does it just seem like that? I've said it before and I'll say it again. Everyone on the right thinks he's the very definition of radical respectability, and everyone to his left a pussy, and everyone to his right a nazi. A man in Sam Francis' position, rather than a canny career girl, would have started a political party and openly declared his intent to lead the way to the changes needed to prevent White genocide. Sammy didn't have a thimble of that impulse in him. He was to the dessert tray born. From an AmRen thread, here's a perfect example of the supposed value of Francis, which on inspection is purely a variant on what the rest of the colunists and virtually all the politicians do: mislead for money. It was only a year ago that I first began reading Sam Francis, but it was through his writings that I at last began to grasp what I was seeing in the world around me. Unlike some racially conscious whites, I never had a conversion experience. I always intinctively opposed immigration and affirmative action on racial grounds. But it was through Francis that I realized how utterly ridiculous contemporary American society really is. He made you realize how incompetent, blind, and idiotic so many politicians, ideas, and policies that we are all supposed to admire really are. He made me see that George W. Bush conservatism was simply a dead end and that the Republican Party is, as he was so fond of saying, the "Stupid Party." But this is not true. Bush is not stupid, and neither is his party. Sammy is guilty of malpractice, just like Quack Taylor. What Sammy really did was cultivate in his young readers an unjustfied arrogance. The fatuous conceit that the Republicans don't know what they're doing is the heart of Sammy's appeal - he makes pre-snobs feel they're part of a select group of knowers. But he himself knew the truth - that he was jackoff coward selling superiority complexes to fogeys of all ages. What they needed was not to feel good about their superior wisdom, but a kick in the ass to get organized and overthrow the kikes running both our parties, our government, and our foreign and domestic policies. It doesn't stand up to common sense to think that men of great political ability and tenacity somehow don't know what they are doing. The elites heading the Republican party may be despicable in a hundred ways, but they are not stupid, that is a lie, and they well know what they are doing. As did Sammy. They're cynical major, and he's cynical minor. He didn't respect his readers enough to tell them the truth. The question is, AmRen fool, did he misjudge you? "You can't handle the truth!" How 'bout you, Jared? How's that ticker, you old fraud? If you don't take down that Jefferson quote, we predict you will succumb to the same psychosomatic guilt fatboy did.[/size]
[/left]
[center][/size][/QUOTE] [/color][/url][/center]
[/size]
2005-02-22 18:20 | User Profile
What on earth is the point of posting a quote in giant purple underlined lettering? Made me [I]not [/I] wanna read it.
And here I'd thought all-caps was an annoying eyesore....
2005-02-22 18:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]What on earth is the point of posting a quote in giant purple underlined lettering? Made me [I]not [/I] wanna read it.
And here I'd thought all-caps was an annoying eyesore....[/QUOTE]
...not to mention Gauleiter Linder's peculiar antipathy to our friend, the paragraph.
2005-02-22 23:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]What on earth is the point of posting a quote in giant purple underlined lettering? Made me not wanna read it.
And here I'd thought all-caps was an annoying eyesore....[/QUOTE]That's simply the way the cut-'n-paste turned out. I didn't even realize it. I'm deeply sorry if its appearance offended you worse than its the content of its manical author apparently did.
2005-02-23 13:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]For instance in regard to feminazism, I used to regard feminazi bashing as a sport. And while I enjoyed watching their faces turn red and smoke billow out of their ears, I didn't win anyone over to my point of view. Now, I take a much more subtle approach, with the sporting aspect put aside. With this method, I can actually make some points, and even win some over. [/QUOTE]
I've made some inroads with feminists, too. Some high-powered, ball-cutting careerist bitches, too.
The pitch has to be emotional. You feel their pain. You feel their sense of loss, their intuition that they're getting the shit end of the stick. But what could it be? What could it be? Maybe the whole thing just isn't set up for them, for their fulfillment. (remember, with women it's always about them).
If they're Christians, it's easier - you can simply trot out all the neo-religious greeting card sentiment about family being important that made Hallmark a great company. If they're not Christians, then I find it's best to catch them in a vulnerable moment - say when you've both worked late on some stupid project and you're on your way home to hearth and home and they have nothing waiting for them but a plate of fried eggs and an empty bed - and ask soulful questions like "hey, what's life all about, anyway?"
Talk about being a father, and how important your family is to you. Say you feel guilty about failing as a father. Something like "surely there must be more to my life than spending another evening working late in the office. What about my family?" or "Hey, my kids need Dad, too. Not just mom!" You can just see the lonely bereftness of their souls spread across their faces as they sidle up to you emotionally.
I know it's hard to imagine, but the Phil Donohue approach really works on the female mind (oxymoron?). Seriously, I've gotten some of these chicks to freeking cry over this maudlin pap. It's the only approach that works, from my experience. As a group they really have a hard time severing reason from emotion, something that's come rather naturally to me, and I think to most men. The pitch has to be to their emotions.
2005-02-23 19:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I've made some inroads with feminists, too. Some high-powered, ball-cutting careerist bitches, too.
The pitch has to be emotional. You feel their pain. You feel their sense of loss, their intuition that they're getting the shit end of the stick. But what could it be? What could it be? Maybe the whole thing just isn't set up for them, for their fulfillment. (remember, with women it's always about them).
If they're Christians, it's easier - you can simply trot out all the neo-religious greeting card sentiment about family being important that made Hallmark a great company. If they're not Christians, then I find it's best to catch them in a vulnerable moment - say when you've both worked late on some stupid project and you're on your way home to hearth and home and they have nothing waiting for them but a plate of fried eggs and an empty bed - and ask soulful questions like "hey, what's life all about, anyway?"
Talk about being a father, and how important your family is to you. Say you feel guilty about failing as a father. Something like "surely there must be more to my life than spending another evening working late in the office. What about my family?" or "Hey, my kids need Dad, too. Not just mom!" You can just see the lonely bereftness of their souls spread across their faces as they sidle up to you emotionally.
I know it's hard to imagine, but the Phil Donohue approach really works on the female mind (oxymoron?). Seriously, I've gotten some of these chicks to freeking cry over this maudlin pap. It's the only approach that works, from my experience. As a group they really have a hard time severing reason from emotion, something that's come rather naturally to me, and I think to most men. The pitch has to be to their emotions.[/QUOTE]
That's true. The best way to a woman is through her emotions and experiences. Keep up the good work, Robert and Walter.