← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 16899 | Posts: 28 | Started: 2005-02-22
2005-02-22 22:04 | User Profile
In a near-perfect example of unintended irony, this exchange of email, ca. 2003, between Francis and Linder associate Vic Gerhard - intended to underscore Canny's cautiousness and cowardice - instead points out the complete dead end of muckraking and rabblerousing as a viable political platform in and of themselves.
But you know what? It's also a depressing read because Gerhard isn't exactly [I]wrong [/I] here either. We all of us adapt to our environments over time, the fantasy of free will notwithstanding, and there can be little doubt that Sam Francis is a little too satisfied with his bank shots and misdirection and seight of hand codespeak....maybe more than he should be. It's as if he's saying that still further repression of pro-white sentiments in the "free market of ideas" should be met by still further acquiescence. Just keep scaling down the notion of [I]victory [/I] until it becomes interchangeable with small [I]defeats[/I], and before too long you're looking at the Wichita Four as a "plus" for us because, hey, at least they weren't the Wichita [I]Five[/I].
It doesn't matter whether you see the glass as half-empty or half-full once you [I]know [/I] the water inside it is crawling with botulism. Although Sam Francis did pull a punch now and then, he understood that what is being lost to the ages isn't whiteness or America but Western Civilization itself...and he understood that this was the same inchoate fear in the pit of his readers' stomachs as well, even if they didn't articulate it that way. The VNN alternative - abandon Western civilization entirely while pretending to revere it - instinctively repels too many people, even the dilettantes who strike bad-boy racist poses on the VNN Forum. There's a place for Linder's acerbic doggerel, but addressing a political body ain't it.
PS: near the end of this piece, you will note Sam Francis indulges in a bit of profanity. I was greatly heartened by its appearance - it humanized him to me more than any number of his columns ever had - and I ask that it be left intact as a sort of tribute to him.
[QUOTE][url]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2005/CantSayThat.htm[/url]
Sam Francis - Vic Gerhard Exchange, Documenting Sammy's Great Fear
22 February 2005
[IMG]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2005/CannySammy.jpg[/IMG]
VNN Reader: I had doubted what Linder said about Francis months ago on how believing one thing and saying another causes health problems. But now it makes sense. This picture from last year looks like a 77- or 87-year-old, not a 57-year-old.
To those who think Linder is too harsh, maybe you should think further. If he speaks his mind and doesn't give a damn, so much the better. After all, that's what free speech means. His example can teach as much as his content. If Francis was a coward, then so are many others (including me) and it's up to us to gain courage. Until we do, our fear should make it clear that, to put it mildly, what Linder is doing is not nearly as easy as he makes it look.
Here's an e-mail exchange between Sam Francis and Victor Gerhard from 2003.
Original Link: Here.
Victor Gerhard-Sam Francis Exchanges
by Gerhard & Francis
Loaded: 4/12/2003
(Ed. Note: this is raw email, so don't hold anybody overly responsible for spelling mistakes, etc.)
Here is correspondence with Sammy. I won't put in comments, cause you don't need them, but note how he first argues that he can't get published, then next he doesn't agree with me about Jews -- which makes the first point moot, all the while ignoring the damning questions, like why he criticizes Hispanics so fiercely, but never Jews. Really, the guy is a nut. Either that or they have some dirt on him, or he is just a scared shit, I don't know. I could have ripped him a new asshole because he was 1) hysterical, and 2) illogical, but I let him off easy. Maybe someday he will do something good, I don't know. He can't write a paragraph without 3 contradictions and one twisting of his opponent's argument. I'd love to debate him and drive him into the dirt.
Vic G
[Me to Francis, responding to Moran column]
Anti-Semitism is saying or doing anything a Jew does not like; whether the statement was true, or the act perfectly justified. That is the real de finition. How can you even pretend otherwise when Jews call someone who defends Arabs (Semites) against Jewish tyranny an 'anti-Semite'?
It's great that you are pecking around the edges of the problem. I'm just not sure what more proof you need to see that Jews are directing American foreign policy; that Culture of Critique and its mind-boggling account of facts is completely true; that to rail against blacks and hispanics without mentioning Jews is like complaining about symptoms but not the disease.
Maybe this sounds cruel and racist; and yet it is true isn't it? Personally, I've read enough of your writings, heard you speak enough times, and even talked to you on occasion, so that I am convinced you recognize the Jewish problem. It would be an immense help if you could now take off the gloves and let the Jews have it. They have it coming. They are the true enemy of Middle Americans. "Oil" is not the justification for this war but a laughably transparent Jewish hedge, nor are the Christian fundamentalists to blame; if they were not supporting Israel we would barely, as before 9/11, realize they existed.
My friends are going to jail for speaking their minds; every day another one is arrested or visited by the FBI, or raided by the Terrorism Task Force. Now is the time, name the Jew, put THEM on the defensive for once. Otherwise, Middle America is doomed; its sons' dying in Central Asia, its jobs moving out of the US, its population increasingly non-White and hostile. We need you to act now; a few months from now may be too late.
Your columns could make an immense difference at this crucial moment. We are watching history, and if the Jews triumph here there may be no stopping them, ever. Goodbye White race.
Vic Gerhard Wilmington, N.C.
[Francis back to me]
I just wrote a column on Moran in which I was fairly explicit about this matter. I have another today that is also pretty explicit about the role of neo-cons (not all Jews) in getting us into the war. What more do you want? Peter Brimelow at Vdare told me the first column probably would not be published by any newspaper in this country (we'll see; my columnn last year supporting what Billy Graham said to Nixon was not published by my three best outlets), and without my authority or knowledge he changed a key line that altered my meaning. You simply cannot go much further than I have already gone and expect to be published at all in anythng like mainstream media, and anyway, aside from the current war, I think there are other problems besides the Jewish role in stirring up blacks and pushing immigration. Both blacks and hispanics have now acquired their own racial consciousness and are not necessarily under Jewish control.
[Me back to Sammy]
I agree, you possibly could not go further and expect to be published mainstream, as of today. This is a reasonable argument for using this tactic. I feel (perhaps incorrectly but I doubt it) that the time is past for this tactic. If you did publish a column going further, USA Today would not print it, but plenty of people would read it on the ever growing alternative White media (overthrow.com, antiwar.com, Vanguard News Network, Stormfront, and many more), and it just may put the bar lower for the next guy who dares. As things look today, your tactic, which you have followed for the 15 years I have been reading you, has gotten a good but watered-down message to Middle America, but our situation is FAR worse than 15 years ago.
Much of Middle America is flying an American flag and 'supporting the troops;' reasonable if you never had another way of thinking offered to you. Your columns are scathing at the beginning and middle, but never offer a realistic answer at the end because you do not name the Jews as the prime movers in the destruction of Middle America. How can someone organize against an amorphous 'Elite'? You rarely name names, except as examples. You talk of the Frankfurt School and other groups, never saying they are almost 100% Jewish and Jewish-funded and based on Jewish tactics and ideals.
You told me you were reading 'The Culture of Critique.' How anyone can read that book and not immediately come to important conclusions based on the Jewish role in the Boasian School, the Left, the Psychoanalytic movement, the Frankfurt School, critique of gentile cultural, immigration policy and more, I do not know. Jewish power is the most important and relevant fact in America today. Yet you do not acknowledge that power. That is a derelection of duty; you are hated by the left and neo-cons regardless of what you do - but do you expect the White right, your true home, to appreciate your half-measures? You are literally a man without a nation.
Precisely how bad must the situation get before you tell the whole truth? Now, how would you have answered that question 2 years ago? Two years ago you would have agreed to open fire if the Government ever did something as tyrannical and insane as the Patriot Act(s), the mass arrests, threats of government torture, Guantanamo detention, the B-52 strikes, the complete control of the Executive Branch by Jews, if not Israeli Jews, hideous airport searches, the Department of Homeland Security, phone taps, and spies controlled by Israel. All on top of a war against 1.1 Billion Muslims that we can never win.
You are being disingenuous when you say you were tough on the Moran critics; not all neo-cons are Jews; and blacks and hispanics are not under Jewish control. You were tough on Moran by the relatively tepid standards of the paleo-cons a la the Rockford institute. Not all neo-cons are Jews, but those that are not Jewish know the score and never deviate from the editorial line DEVISED wholly by Jews. Blacks and hispanics may have thrown off a bit of the Jewish yoke, but the Jewish strategy and mindset lives on and they would have little power to intimidate Whites without Jewish judges, lawyers, financing and media pressure. You know this. As far as Brimelow, he needs a kick in the ass also.
What is it you want? To be published mainstream? To be rich? To be on TV? These I can not help you with. But if you want to save Whites and their culture, get off the fence and attack the enemy. At this point, you are actually furnishing disinformation, confusing the very public who soon will be looking for answers as the situation in their country grows worse. And hey, Sobran gets published. I gave him a thousand dollars of my money because of his honest stance; a thousand dollars I had to make in payments because I'm his poorest charter subscriber.
What more can I expect of you? I want you to finally and forever cast off the chains of Jewish fear, Jewish money, and Jewish influence. I want you to write columns that will stir the public to rise up and change this nation. Join those on the radical right who are not afraid to tell the whole truth. I am not asking you to do ANYTHING I have not done. I lost my job as an Attorney, I have friends going to jail on made up charges, I've had my phone tapped, I get the super search at every airport, but I am a FREE MAN! I also write columns - they don't get published mainstream, but thousands of people read them. You could do a hundred times better.
I realize this is a lot to ask, but screw the money and respectability. What do I want? White Power!
Victor J. Gerhard, Esq. Wilmington, NC
[Sammy back to me]
Well, I'm sorry I'm such a disappointment to you. The fact is that I have read the Culture of Critique, as well as the other two volumes, know MacDInald personally, and agree with much though not all of what he says. My entore body of writings over the last 20-25 years is an explanation of how I sidagree and and have a somewhat dofferent view of the world than what is frankly a monomanical obsession with an omnipotent Jew. There are reasons why neo-conservatism exists other than Jewish power, and these should be obvious to any one actually involved in politics. I was a witness to many of them. Just one, for example, is the greed and amition and shalloweness of many orthodox non-Jewish conservatives fro the "respectability" they thought Jews could give them. You and critics like you always assume that because others don't say what you demand they say, they must be afraid to say it. The fact is, as I just told you, I have just written two columns that will probably harm me more than they help me, so it is not fear on my part. Can you even imagine that maybe I don't agree with your view of the Jews, that the Jews and the Jews alone are solely responsible for everthing bad that has happened and is going on? I really don't think you can. Moreover, as I was trying to tell you indirectly, I depend on outlets like Vdrae and Rockford; if they don't publish me, I don't get piublished, and they would not publish me if I write what you want me to write (which I do not agree with anyway). Sobran does not get published outside of his own newsletter and maybe the Wanderer. The American Cisnervatuve won't publish him. Chronicles won't publish him. His syndicate dropped him. So don't tell me about things I know about more than you. It's fine to piublish on sites like VNN., but no one -- non one --reads them or takes them seriously outside a handful of people. Sure I'd like to be rich, but do you imagine I thought I would ever get rich writing what I write? I really just don't know how to explain to people like you what the real world is like, because the truth is -- take it form someone who went through graduate school, worked in a think tank, in the US Senate, and at a nationally distrubuted newspaper for 9 years -- you and your pals do not have a fuc king clue.
[Me to Sammy]
Oooookay....now why will the columns harm you, why won't Vdare and Rockford publish such a column, why can't Sobran get published? Oh, and what is this war stuff on the T.V.? Come on, I wasn't rude to you, nor did I say Jews were every single problem, but that they are far, far more of the problem than recognized by your columns. (By the way, if non-Jewish neo-conservatives want the 'respectablity' they feel Jews can give them, that is not ANOTHER reason neo-cons exist, but rather the very one I stated - Jewish Power.) I don't have a CLUE? You say you agree with most of MacDonald, then when I base my arguments on him, I don't have a clue? Tell me what part of MacDonald you agree with, can you buck up and do that? Agreeing with even one chapter would put in serious question the honesty of your writing, would it not; as that agreement is never acknowledged by you in your writings. And tell me what you disagree with. I get the managerial elite argument, I've read and re-read what you have written over the years, but your very email here implies you won't get published for criticizing Jews as an ethnic group, though you HAVE criticized black's and hispanic's as ethnic groups, and then attacks me with an anger I did nothing to merit.
You are in the same bag as Jared Taylor, who in person admitted he chose not to attack Jews because he had enough of a problem attacking blacks, et al. You fit right in at American Renaissance, I'd say. For all your 'think tank' work, did you ever stand on a street with demonstrators as Jews rained bricks down on you for daring to speak out against them, as the police turned their heads? You write about Middle America, I am Middle America. I'm not sure precisely what sentence got you riled. I'd wish you'd tell me so I can use it again. Hey, if people read this exchange, who will they think has a clue, you or me? I'll wager on me.
Plus, the idea that 'no one' takes VNN seriously is ridiculous. The ever-growing numbers of people that do take it seriously are true activists, each worth 100 brandy-sniffing Chronicle's readers. People that will put their financial and physical well being on the line for the ideals you somewhat endorse. Another point, what is the ENTIRE Muslim world yelling about if not many of the same beliefs about Jews showcased on VNN? Add in much of Europe and Asia and South America, and much of the US population of blacks and hispanics, and, well, that's not really 'a handful of people' is it?
I truly do respect you and your writing had a great effect on my life. Actually, you brought me a long way to the beliefs I have. Yet you, Dr. Frankenstein, feel I don't have a clue. What is that line about the guilty man fleeing where no one pursues? Sorry, should know it, just too Middle American.
Your entire body of work does little to counter an anti-Jewish explanation of American Politics. I believe almost all you have written; yet it contradicts most of MacDonald not at all. Your writings try to explain why and how this managerial elite became so alienated and hostile to traditional America. It partially explains the alienation, but does little to explain the hostility, the outright hatred, that these elites have for people who are basically members of their family. Only a non-White group could have such hatred for Whites, and such an obsession with their destruction. Only by understanding that the most influential part of the managerial elite is Jewish can one finally understand this contradiction in your work.
Anyway, have to get back to the T.V. and see which of my friends Michael Chertoff has arrested, listen to Alan Dershowitz talk about torturing them, and hear Ari Fleisher's take on the whole thing, per Richard Pearle. One last thing; you do realize that Jews as an ethnic group are 3% of the American population? A smaller percentage than Austrian Americans? That fact has made it to you right? But since they are not omnipotent, it's just a minor fact of American politics; voila, the exception proves the rule. Well, as for our discussion, res ipsa loquitur, as we clueless say.
Vic Gerhard Counsel, White Revolution
[Sammy to me]
I had thought that you, unlike several of the others who like to rant about my "cowardice," "treachery," "phil-Semitism," etc., had a little more sense, but appraently I was misguided. Let me try to explain once more in some detail what I am trying to tell you.
What you said in your last communication was insulting because it at least indirectly and perhaps directly questioned my integrity, acusing me of cowardice or ignorance or dishonesty or greed or ambition as the only plausible reaons I do not write what you want me to write as you want it written. I have to say that I have received many criticisms as a columnist but this -- from the professional (and usualy anonymous) anti-Semites -- takes the cake. No one else presumes ot tell a writer what to write or how to write, even as they insult his character and intelligence -- not religious nuts, not racial nuts, not libertarian nuts -- except maybe the Jews themselves. But leave all that aside.
Vdare, Rockford, etc won't publish openly anti-Semitic pieces because (a) they like most gentiles are irrationally afraid of Jewish power and (b) they also have rational concerns over Jewish power. Both have Jewish "friends" who give them money, publicity, support, etc. and they are afraid -- I believe not entirely withgoiut cause but in an exaggerated way -- of losing that. Also, like most peopole they would like to do something else besides attack Jews and sometimes there are Jews with whim they need to work in order th do those things. (Rockford just held a conference in the Middle East on a prospects for peace there; it wasnlt my idea and I don't see the point, except that some donors (non-Jewish ) gave them money to do it.) Therefore, they are veyr careful about antaginizing Jewish supporters. As you may know, they were virtually destroyed in the late 1980s by neo-con defunding because of positive remarks they made about Gore Vidal and because of their opposition to immigration. Nevertheless, they have consistently published pieces critical of Zionism, including several of my recent columns on the Iraq war and Jewish neo-con- Israeli power, and of foreign entanglements, perpetual wars, etc. Chronicles also published a review of MacDonald by Paul Gottfried which I strongly dsagree with but they allowed MacDonald to write a long response, more than the American Conservative allowed. I do not control either RI or Vdare and foten disagree withbhiw they are run, but essentially they do not attack the Jews because they are more interested in other problems.
Unless you really do believe that Jews are the causes of all problems, which you deny, you have to admit there are other problems. You ask what I disagree with in MacDonald. I can't really comment on the general evolutionary theory since I'm not an expert, but I have no problem with it. Nor do I have a problem with his characterization of Jews in general, though some people tell me it's less true of some Jewish groups (Sephardic) than others (Ashkenazic) or at some periods of history than at others. What I do not agree with Kevin on is that while he's right about the way Jews are, that doesn't mean they are always successful. They may have pushed open borders as a means of underminig what they saw as a hostile hist society, but that doesn't mean their efforts were the reason we have open borders opr that other groups didn't wnat open borders for their own reasons. I dealt with immigration partly when I was in the Senate and frankly the role of the Jews was not at all apparent, as it was in foreign policy, and many social issues. The main enemies of immigration control on the right are (1) libertarians and (2) Catholics; the same was true at the Wash. Times, and I knew Jews who were opposed to more immigration at both places.Libertarianism tends to be Jewish-led, but it exists as an idnependent force in its own right amoing gentiles. I recall in 1995 or 95 Bill Gates visited Sen. Alan Simpson to lobby him on H1-B visas; Simpson caved. Neither is Jewish and neither did what he did becaise of Jewish power or influence but because of business and political interests. Business interests have been the main reason we have immigrant workers pushing out American workers in meat packing, textiles, poultry processing, etc. The Jews may serve as lawyers or lobbyists for these groups but Jewish groups per se have had little to do with immigration policy in recent years.
I don't deny that Jews have power -- certainly in the media and cultural centers generally and in politics through funding, staffing etc. But Jews are not the ruling class in this country (at least not yet). As in many other societies they form a subelite that provides services for the ruling class (tax collecting in Poland, e.g.), but I think they have little interest in becoming theactual ruling class because they have no interest in that as loing as their interests are secured.
Your line about standing on street corners getting attacked by Jews is frankly childish. No I didn't. I just lost my job and my career for what I wrote about race (and I can tell you Jews appear to have had something to do with that and have certainly used it against me ever since). I'll bet Kevin MacDOnald never did either. I have a clue for you: Standing on street corners and yelling anti-Semitic slogans isn't a very effectuve way to challeneg much of anything. Hyde Park is full of characters like that. What I have tried to do -- explicitly at the Times and later as well -- has been to make explicit and serious discussion of race respectable. That means picking your shots and not saying everything you'd like to say because you know it will simply baffle or alarm many readers, but it does mean that you can tell many, many people a lot fo things they didn't know or hadn't thought about. I think I was beginning to succeed when I was fired, and that may have been the real reason I was fired. Last summer when the National Alliance had its march on the Israeli Embassy I asked a friend who was planning to attend why and what good it would do? I told him all you will accomplish is give the Post the chance to portray all of you as a bunch of Nazi goons at a time when some opinion sectors were startiung to turn on Israel. Thatls exactly what happened -- pictures of swastika flags, jack boots, etc. that understandably frighten and alienate most Americans and allow the Jews to say, "See, we told you what all those critics of Israel were like!" The idea that people like Linder and VNN accomplish much of anything outside of mutual masturbation is ludcrous. Frankly, I had never heard of Linder until he started attacking me and some people told me about it. With all due respect, I had never heard of your column until you told me you write one.
Finally, I have been gratified (one of the few gratifictaions I ever get in my profession) by being told by doxens of yuong people that I had taught them something they would not have known otherwise. No one but you and your friends have ver denounced me for being a hypocrite, a coward, a liar, a traitor, etc. I would have thiught that you would have epxressed some appreciation for what I have done, but the fact the you don't and can find only the most hateful things to say about me tells me all I need to know. As I told one of your colleagues recently, from now on I can only regard the whole bunch of you as my enemies and as enemies of the cause for which I am working.
[Me to Sammy, biting my tongue]
I have though about this a lot, and there is much more that could be said, but I don't think we are going to agree no matter what is said.
I do have to say that if your foremost cause is the continuation of the White Race, then there is no possible way we can be enemies as you described.
Though it sounds fawning, no one has structured my political awareness like you in your writings. I learned more reading your Chronicles columns, especially Revolution from the Middle, than in four years of undergraduate study.
Yours,
Vic Gerhard[/QUOTE]
2005-02-22 22:20 | User Profile
It's also a depressing read because Gerhard isn't exactly wrong here either. We all of us adapt to our environments over time, the fantasy of free will notwithstanding, and there can be little doubt that Sam Francis is a little too satisfied with his bank shots and misdirection and seight of hand codespeak....maybe more than he should be. It's as if he's saying that still further repression of pro-white sentiments in the "free market of ideas" should be met by still further acquiescence. Just keep scaling down the notion of victory until it becomes interchangeable with small defeats, and before too long you're looking at the Wichita Four as a "plus" for us because, hey, at least they weren't the Wichita Five.
All true, but I have yet to see anybody who has proposed a workable model for major victories, unless you count poison venison as one such model. Until such a person and strategy arise, the most valuable people are those who work to soften the blows of defeat.
Honestly, the greatest loss to the authentic right has been the creeping neocon takeover of websites, newspapers, and TV talk slots. Whoever works to keep at least some token opposition to neoconservatism in newspapers that people read and TV programs that people watch is probably the most valuable person alive today. As much as I criticize Buchanan, I think having him on network television politely ripping Sharansky to pieces is worth more than its weight in not only megabytes of ITZ bandwidth, but megabytes of my posts or yours on blogs or messageboards.
2005-02-22 22:33 | User Profile
Oh, agreed. I'm not taking a shot at Francis here; just acknowledging that there is a kernel of reason in the VNN complaint that he who freely allows Jews to determine where the border between allowable and verboten is to be drawn has lost already, regardless of how valiantly one struggles inside those lines.
But your point - if you can't provide a better alternative, you should temper your criticism before baby and bathwater both get tossed away - makes eminent sense.
2005-02-22 23:03 | User Profile
The problem is that the border between the allowable and the verboten has been internalized by many of Francis's intended readers. If Francis had written a VNN-style rant in 1994, I would have ignored him as a kook, as I would have ignored Linder back then. It takes more than one column to change minds on this subject.
One of the biggest failings of paleoconservatives is their attempt to gain respectability by denouncing "racists" on the right. Francis was not guilty of this (and criticized Buchanan for doing so) but Thomas Fleming is. A piece I found particularly contemptible was his denunciation of holocaust revisionists, in which he did not bother to explain why they were wrong.
2005-02-22 23:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stanley]One of the biggest failings of paleoconservatives is their attempt to gain respectability by denouncing "racists" on the right. Francis was not guilty of this (and criticized Buchanan for doing so) but Thomas Fleming is. A piece I found particularly contemptible was his denunciation of holocaust revisionists, in which he did not bother to explain why they were wrong.[/QUOTE]
That's true, which is why I criticize Buchanan far more than Francis. Buchanan attacked David Duke while Francis defended him in his columns, and in his essays criticized Buchanan for alienating racialists and militia members who wanted to support his candidacy.
Of course, one could argue that just as Francis is more of a public figure than someone like Don Black, so Pat Buchanan is much more of a household name than Sam Francis. Therefore, Buchanan had to pull more punches to stay on Crossfire than Francis did to keep his syndicated column, just as Francis had to pull more punches than somebody with nothing to lose but a website.
I think the key here is not how many punches you pull but how many outright betrayals come from your mouth. Keeping quiet about some incendiary issue to maintain your visibility is fine, while saying the 180 degree opposite of what you truly believe (i.e. Buchanan endorsing George W. Bush and attacking "racists", vs. just not saying anything at all) is not.
Finally, there's another angle involved here. None of us are mind readers, so we just assume that Buchanan et al believe what we do and just don't say it. To a large part this is due to the fact that we've internalized what the neos and liberals say, i.e. they say he's a crypto-racialist, so we assume that he is one. In truth, he may not be one at all. For instance, Joseph Sobran may be branded as a "racialist," but he certainly isn't one, he's an old-school libertarian and a conservative Catholic. With little to lose at this point, he has come out and said that he has no problem with Mexican immigration into the US - and however much I disagree with this view, I have no doubt that he's sincere. It's also quite possible that Buchanan believes that much of Holocaust revisionism is false.
2005-02-22 23:18 | User Profile
I would dearly love to read what Mr.Linder has to say about Hunter S. Thompson. :wink:
2005-02-22 23:27 | User Profile
[B][I] - "It's also quite possible that Buchanan believes that much of Holocaust revisionism is false."[/I][/B]
Not only him, I also find some of the more extreme revisionist arguments downright contrived.
David Irving does seem to think that way as well - here's his 2000 interview with Helen Darville:
[COLOR=DarkRed]"[I]You don't use the term 'Holocaust', Mr Irving, but clearly agree to slaughter on a vast scale[/I]," I begin. "[I][B]How many Jews do you think died in the Final Solution[/B][/I]?"
He tells me -- as he told 2GB's Ron Casey in July 1995 interview a July 1 995 interview -- that he puts the figure between one and four million.[/COLOR]
[I]"[COLOR=Purple]The number of people murdered by any physical act of violence -- shooting or hanging or any other method -- I would put at about a million, primarily on the Eastern front, being machine-gunned into pits," [/COLOR] [/I] [COLOR=DarkRed]he begins[/COLOR]. [I][COLOR=Purple]"[B]If you include all those who starved to death, or died of typhus, or were worked to death, then you easily reach a figure of four million illegal deaths[/B]."[/COLOR]
[url]http://www.aaargh-international.org/fran/polpen/dirving/darville.html[/url][/I]
Petr
2005-02-22 23:28 | User Profile
It was Fleming who wrote the article on Revisionists. He may well believe all or most of the standard account, but he did not give reasons why.
Buchanan wrote a column saying the Diesel exhaust does not kill people -- which knocks out about half the Holocaust story right there. I don't know whether this is true or not, but he quickly published a retraction, whether because he became convinced he was mistaken, or because he realized his career was in jeopardy.
2005-02-22 23:34 | User Profile
[quote=Petr]
Not only him, I also find some of the more extreme revisionist arguments downright contrived.
David Irving does seem to think that way as well - here's his 2000 interview with Helen Darville:
"The number of people murdered by any physical act of violence -- shooting or hanging or any other method -- I would put at about a million, primarily on the Eastern front, being machine-gunned into pits," he begins. "If you include all those who starved to death, or died of typhus, or were worked to death, then you easily reach a figure of four million illegal deaths."
The problem is that people are presented with caricatures of "Revisionist" history that deny that Hitler was responsible for substantial civilian dead apart from collateral damage. What Irving and others claim is that there were no orders to exterminate en masse (i.e. no gas chambers, etc), but rather that Jews and other "undesirables" were deported, sent to labor camps, and systematically abused by the SS and Gestapo, with the numbers of deaths possibly numbering in the millions.
I honestly haven't followed this debate with any care, simply because I think a far better angle to approach the problem is not "how many did Hitler kill" but rather, "Why are we supposed to think that this is the most important event in the 20th century, nay, all of history, especially in view of all of the other death and bloodshed that went on?"
2005-02-22 23:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I think a far better angle to approach the problem is not "how many did Hitler kill" but rather, "Why are we supposed to think that this is the most important event in the 20th century, nay, all of history, especially in view of all of the other death and bloodshed that went on?"[/QUOTE]
Better yet - "what does this have to do with us in the here and now?"
(Well, maybe a lot. Jews manipulated the world into dismantling and destroying a vocally anti-Semitic nation [I]then[/I], and they're doing it all over again today.)
I prefer this analogy, though: in Arab countries thieves are punished with the loss of their hand. Westerners rightly feel revulsion at such penalties, viewing this as cruel and inhumane punishment disproportionate to the actual crime.
But that doesn't mean we legalize theft, either; or view thieves as moral exemplars whose unique suffering justifies their remodelling of our socities.
2005-02-22 23:45 | User Profile
Even if we accept the establishment version of the statistics and methodology of the Jewish Holocaust it would rank as the Twentieth Century's fifth most costly genocide/holocaust.
Chinese Holocaust--60 Million Russian Holocaust--30 Million Congolese Holocaust--11 Million (under Belguim's Leopold II) Ukrainian Holocaust--8 Million Jewish Holocaust--6 Million Armenian Holocaust--3 Million Cambodian Holocaust--2 Million
Jews are welcome to argue that the death of one of their Tribe marks a greater tragedy than the death of a non-Jew, but most people would find such an argument indefensible.
Put 'em on the defensive. If they mention "The Holocaust" ask 'em which one...
2005-02-22 23:48 | User Profile
[I]Chinese Holocaust--60 Million Russian Holocaust--30 Million Congolese Holocaust--11 Million (under Belguim's Leopold II) Ukrainian Holocaust--8 Million Jewish Holocaust--6 Million Armenian Holocaust--3 Million Cambodian Holocaust--2 Million[/I]
Just a little nitpicking: I think the "Ukrainian Holocaust" is included in the "Russian Holocaust" figures, and that 1,5 million is the greatest credible number for Armenian Holocaust.
Petr
2005-02-22 23:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]I prefer this analogy, though: in Arab countries thieves are punished with the loss of their hand. Westerners rightly feel revulsion at such penalties, viewing this as cruel and inhumane punishment disproportionate to the actual crime.
But that doesn't mean we legalize theft, either; or view thieves as moral exemplars whose unique suffering justifies their remodelling of our socities.[/QUOTE]
I've always thought of it this way: what Hitler did to Jews would be analogous to a situation where in addition to executing a crime boss and his cronies, we were to also execute his friends and family (biological and marital, not crime family) members who were't actively involved in his crimes, but who either knew about and tacitly approved of the crimes in question, or else just turned a blind eye and lived off the profits.
2005-02-22 23:56 | User Profile
The Ukrainian Holocaust was the planned mass-starvation in the early 30's (a grislier way to go than by cyadide gassing)--the Russian Holocaust was the "collateral damage" wrought by Trotsky/Lenin on civilians from the Romanovs to counter-revolutionary districts through the Kulaks; 1917-25.
I have heard the 3 million figure from reliable Armenian sources--this would include the period from the initial 1915 murders through the killings under Ataturk's early regime.
2005-02-23 00:01 | User Profile
30 million is the absolute credible maximum for the [B]entire[/B] Soviet death toll in the period of 1917-1953.
Petr
2005-02-23 00:10 | User Profile
O.K., we'll take your numbers. That still puts the Jewish Holocaust at #5.
2005-02-23 00:36 | User Profile
Is it just me or was Francis implicitly saying that he used Vdare and Rockford to get his message out, that he really didn't particularly like either. I always thought he and Fleming were pretty close.
More to add...
I couldn't help but agree with most of what Francis had to say. For someone to be attacking his integrity is pretty extraordinary considering what Francis lost for what he wrote.
Furthermore, his final point about the idiots who protested at the Israeli embassy really highlighted why Francis had a modicum of success and crass organizations like VNN have no success. What possible progress did that group think could be made by showing up with swastikas? What a bunch of loser tools. I am the most right-wing person out of everyone I know personally, and I would want nothing to do with those idiots. It would have been much more instructive to denounce Israeli influence and Jewish dual loyalty... without the Swastikas and the rest of the Nazi garb.
Then, people like me, might actually listen to what they have to say. Until they learn, they will be derided as nutjobs and will only appeal to those who have nothing to lose and are looking for someone to blame.
One more thing...
The VNN fellow kept referring to friends who are being thrown in jail, bugged, and harassed by the FBI and other gov't organizations. Under what law or what suspicion does this occur? Or does it occur at all?
2005-02-23 00:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE] The VNN alternative - abandon Western civilization entirely while pretending to revere it - instinctively repels too many people, even the dilettantes who strike bad-boy racist poses on the VNN Forum. There's a place for Linder's acerbic doggerel, but addressing a political body ain't it.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. VNN's style is harsh because Linder thinks that the paleoconservatives haven't done enough Jew-mentioning. But I don't think that automatically equals abandoning traditional Western culture. Think of VNN as an instrument that sounds the alarm about the Jews, like Paul Revere in a way. After the alarm is sounded, then the citizenry can decide for themselves what flavor of Western culture to champion.
2005-02-23 06:50 | User Profile
"Counter-Productive" is the applicable adjective here.
What percentage of Hollywood Nazis aren't latent homos; closet Jews; costume fetishists; raw psychopaths; epsilon ex-cons or COINTELPRO provocateurs? 5%, tops?
If Linder's not on Abe's payroll he oughtta be...
2005-02-23 09:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]But I don't think that automatically equals abandoning traditional Western culture.
--------[/QUOTE]
Nonsense.
Western Civilization is based upon Christianity. Linder rejects Christianity, to put it mildly. Ergo, Linder rejects Western Civilization.
2005-02-23 11:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Nonsense.
Western Civilization is based upon Christianity. Linder rejects Christianity, to put it mildly. Ergo, Linder rejects Western Civilization.[/QUOTE]
The ancient Greeks were Christian?
I think you refer to the[I] modern [/I] West.
But nonetheless, the early roots of Western civilization are not Christian.
:smoke:
2005-02-23 12:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]The ancient Greeks were Christian?
I think you refer to the[I] modern [/I] West.
But nonetheless, the early roots of Western civilization are not Christian.
:smoke: ---------[/QUOTE]
"Modern" West? Absurd. The West has been Christian for 1700 years. The "West" is largely coextensive with the Church.
That which we call the West, after all, is a synthesis of Greek and Roman (and Germanic) philosophy and law subsisting in the context of the Christian religion.
And even then, the Christian distaff side of the Western synthesis is of an even more venerable lineage than the Greek staff side, extending as it does all the way back to Abraham and the civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia.
Nobody can rightly claim fealty to the West and reject the Christian Faith that gave it shape and within which it subsists.
Hitler was no man of the West. And neither is Linder, not that I include such an insignificant loser in the great man's company.
2005-02-23 14:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]First of all, I agree that it was terrible for Linder to dance on Francis' grave like that.
It would have been merely terrible had a liberal, neo-"conservative" or Bolshevist (or are those three different names for the same thing?) to have said such things, but for a person who (albeit laughably) claims to hold some sort of position of national (or least mid-west regional) leadership in a broader WN movement to have made them, is so thoroughly abominable and grotesque as to be beyond belief. His rantings upon the death of the heroic and learned Dr. Francis thus forever disassociate Linder from any and all notions along the lines of "honor" or "decency."
Il Ragno has been one of my favorite posters here, and at The Phora, for sometime, but I always scratch my head, and recall the things I've said I later wish I hadn't, when I've read him making even tepid and qualified defenses of Linder(ism). But hey, to each his own. Until now. While he's been persona non grata to me since about a week after I first heard his name (which was about a week after I registered here at OD, some 13 months ago), I think his despicable remarks, directed at one of the finest Americans of the last 60 years, in the immediate aftermath of the great man's death, and made in an intentionaly gleeful and celebratory tone, have pushed Linder objectively beyond the pale. No one concerned with the future of the White race should ever fail to condemn, boycott or ignore Alex Linder, as well as his VNN, and all the associated institutional trappings of Linderism, at each and every single opportunity. You can't say what he said, and hope to remain even a dimwitted, embarrassing, yet-still-potential ally. At some point, one makes one's self part of the enemy camp by saying things that are just too destructive to the goals of a given political movement (or cluster of inter-related political movements, as the broad front to defeat the plans of our new/corrupted elite, for our eventual slavery and extinction, can perhaps best be thought of).
Linder has crossed that line. He is our enemy, and we are his.
Not everyone will agree (or perhaps they will - Linder went pretty far this time), and one can't come down too hard on one's friends with eccentric points of view (particularly those of us who adhere to an eccentric notion or two ourselves), but I think those who do agree with the thesis of this modest essay, ought to make their agreement loudly obvious and crystalline clear at every relevant opportunity. Linder is the functional and moral equivalent of an NKVD operative, and Linderism is an offensive and counterproductive blaspemy, which must be incinerated into rhetorical oblivion whenever it rears its treacherous head.
2005-02-23 15:06 | User Profile
You must understand Linder's point.
Linder's point about the paleoconservatives is that they failed to warn White people about the Jews. It was their duty, and they didn't do their duty. It wasn't the duty of supermarket clerks to do that warning. It was the job of paleocon writers to do that warning. And they didn't. They talked about leftism, about feminism, about communism, about immigration, but never about the Jews - the people who birthed those things. That allowed the Jews to gain one heck of a foothold in American culture from about 1955 onward. And that crippled America's White culture.
That is why Linder so harshly criticized Sam Francis, even when he died. Linder thinks that we should champion William Pierce, not Sam Francis. I have to say that I agree - although I would not have used the same language that Linder used re: Sam Francis.
It is time for the paleocons to make up for lost time. From now on, I would like every paleocon writer to say, when he writes about feminism, communism, etc., [B]who brung it.[/B] Think that will happen?
2005-02-23 20:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=maybe Sam Francis]You and critics like you always assume that because others don't say what you demand they say, they must be afraid to say it. The fact is, as I just told you, I have just written two columns that will probably harm me more than they help me, so it is not fear on my part. Can you even imagine that maybe I don't agree with your view of the Jews, that the Jews and the Jews alone are solely responsible for everthing bad that has happened and is going on? I really don't think you can. Moreover, as I was trying to tell you indirectly, I depend on outlets like Vdrae and Rockford; if they don't publish me, I don't get piublished, and they would not publish me if I write what you want me to write (which I do not agree with anyway).[/QUOTE]
This pretty much answers all the questions and ends the discussion.
Case closed.
2005-02-23 22:49 | User Profile
Gentlemen,
I have been lurking around OD a while, and finally decided to log in and post.
Here's my take -- too much talk and debate, not enough action. By action I mean of course legal, community building activities.
It's disappointing. I am finding most people both inside and outside the WN movement to be quite a lazy bunch of folks. There's a few exceptions, and those are within WN, but overall, people are lazy as hell. I am in a private e-mail list started by a WN old timer who is well known but I will not name, and there only a very few of us. I just realized, that everyone on that last (less than a half dozen) are those whom the old timer identified as "doers." Almost all of our e-mail exchanges are regarding some concrete project one of us is doing, or it's a technical question bandied about.
I try to get some people around here who are part of the "Internet non-Movement" to get involved in some sort of worthwhile project, and they aren't interested, however relevant I try to tailor it to their life.
Even if you, Mr. Single WN, do nothing else, get a second job and buy gold and silver coin with the money, because gold and silver will go up, and it will be nice to have when gold is 10,000 dollars an ounce.
At the same time, I think about the European settlers from the Mayflower, or Scandinavians who turned Minnesota into a breadbasket, or I look at the Asians around me in contemporary America, and I scratch my head. Why are they (whites from old days, Asians now) are they so diligent and evolutionarily sound behaving, and our contemporary WN folk so utterly lazy?
If you want to make the cut, in the Darwinian sense, you can't sit on your ass. You ahve to try and anticipate the future, and work towards surviving it, and thriving, and maybe even reproducing, or helping out those whites who are reproducing.
I used to do public activism, and that's what I became well known for, but now I'm not sure of it's value. If people aren't ready for my message, then I need to put my time nad energy into something else, for now.
Future public activism isn't going to involve signs or protest permits, either. As America declines it's going to become one big black market/mafia economy. Either whites will be part of that and have our own Aryan mafia, or we'll be victimized by non-white ethnic mafias. Being a "godfather" to scrappy white kids in difficult straits is going to be the real "public activism." Providing some form of employment and sustenance to racially loyal whites, especially families, is the white activism of the future.
some web sites I suggest reading: [url]www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net[/url] [url]www.kunstler.com[/url] [url]www.fromthewilderness.com[/url] [url]www.peakoil.com[/url] [url]www.urbansurvival.com[/url]
Rob
2005-02-23 23:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE]As America declines it's going to become one big black market/mafia economy. Either whites will be part of that and have our own Aryan mafia, or we'll be victimized by non-white ethnic mafias. [/QUOTE]
Excellent point. But - while I fully agree a white shadow economy is imperative - the same problem arises as greeted you in your activist campaigns. Whites are not monolithic and never were, and it's not only in America that this fragmentation is evident.
It simply doesn't seem to matter to most of us that we [I]are [/I] being displaced; what's far more important to whites is that it hasn't happened [I]just yet[/I]. No, I'm not happy about that, but there's an old saw that says "you never miss your water till your well runs dry". Like most cliches, there's a [I]reason [/I] it's a cliche.
Besides, let's face it: anyone who can be easily convinced to sell their birthright for a mess of pottage doesn't really [I]deserve [/I] to mantain dominion over their homelands. More than anything else, white people want to be [I]liked[/I]....by people who will only like us when we're dead or totally declawed. It will take harder lessons than any website can provide to right this shiip.
2005-02-24 09:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=random]his final point about the idiots who protested at the Israeli embassy really highlighted why Francis had a modicum of success and crass organizations like VNN have no success. What possible progress did that group think could be made by showing up with swastikas? What a bunch of loser tools. I am the most right-wing person out of everyone I know personally, and I would want nothing to do with those idiots. It would have been much more instructive to denounce Israeli influence and Jewish dual loyalty... without the Swastikas and the rest of the Nazi garb.
The man charged with organizing this [url=http://natvan.com]National Alliance[/url] rally, Billy Roper, deemed it worthwhile to invite a bunch of people from the Aryan Nations and the Word Church of the Creator to the rally, in order to get a bigger turn-out. This has a lot to do with A) why there were a bunch of semi-literate idiots with swastika tatoos shouting "Sieg heil!," through their ungroomed beards, and B) why Billy Roper was soon expelled from the Alliance, and went on to form his infantile, Linderesque "White Revolution" group. The Alliance still organizes demonstrations, and we worked closely with the Institute for Historical Review in organizing the recent round of demonstrations at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, and numerous Canadian consulates across the nation. Not only are swastikas and the like explicitly banned at ALL Alliance demonstrations and other functions, but so are even casual modes of dress and "alternative" modes of personal comportment. National Alliance demonstrations have become the very model of decorum in the post-Roper era, and are frankly an example for other patriotic groups to emulate, despite the brief flurry of Roperesque foolishness that was mistakenly permitted to flourish a few years back.