← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust
Thread ID: 17820 | Posts: 36 | Started: 2005-04-17
2005-04-17 07:48 | User Profile
Check out this thread[URL=http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1796399&postcount=36]
Re: Rockwell's Brown speech (StormFront)[/URL].
Neier of course was the (jewish) ACLU director who moved to allow the Nazi's 78 Skokie march, the reference I discuss [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=110206&postcount=6]here [/URL] alludes to earlier on. His reasoning was interesting, and to my mind plausible. He seems to have disliked the symbiotic way the Nazi's and jewish organizations feed off each other, and wished to in his own way distance himself from it by putting himself above it and people like Collin.
A bit sensitive a subject I guess at Stormfront. You know - I do wonder how much of these groups organizations, VNN, NA, etc. is cryptically underwritten by jewish organizations. It certainly makes a lot of sense for them, monetarily speaking.
2005-04-17 17:12 | User Profile
They let me leave my message up, and I got a reply - from a moderator no less! Now of course the whole subthread is purged of any irreverant messages about the most holy Rockwell. What a joke. I think I know where JR got his moderating style from, if it wasn't vice versa.
[quote=JohnJoyTree] Let's just have Aryeh Neier's cogent, accurate, observation again shall we??
The major national Jewish groups enjoy far more sophisticated leadership than is available to most other cause *organisations in the United States. The leaders of these groups knew very well that the Nazi movement... is miniscule... that it has no prospect[s] ... ]They also know that a tiny Nazi movement serves the purposes of organised Jewry[/SIZE]... It even makes it more difficult for the shapers of American foreign policy to abandon Israel... The Nazis deter the expression of anti semitism in forms which may be more palatable to the American public... (205)
Therefore, according to Neier, post-Rockwell Nazism evolved into a newspaper sensation cleverly related to the needs of other organisations, particularly Zionists.
Remember, remember, remember: neo-nazism, worship of Hitler, is an adjuct of and servant to jewish power. It has no other function whatever.
Anyone had any other like experiences with them or VNN?
2005-04-18 11:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Anyone had any other like experiences with them or VNN?[/QUOTE] Iââ¬â¢ve never personally experienced any moderation on SF, but it's certainly a very heavily moderated site (albeit perhaps for different reasons in the Stormfront International section). The moderate (or hippy crypto-Jew according to some) JohnJoyTree has developed something of a hate club following during his tenure, he grates with the sort of WNs I term holistic anti-Semites.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]You know - I do wonder how much of these groups organizations, VNN, NA, etc. is cryptically underwritten by jewish organizations.[/QUOTE] I've met more than one or two ex-Stormfronters that'd agree with your theory but for almost exactly the opposite reasons.
2005-04-20 06:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=na Gaeil is gile]Iââ¬â¢ve never personally experienced any moderation on SF, but it's certainly a very heavily moderated site (albeit perhaps for different reasons in the Stormfront International section). The moderate (or hippy crypto-Jew according to some) JohnJoyTree has developed something of a hate club following during his tenure, he grates with the sort of WNs I term holistic anti-Semites. Yeah, it was interesting. My post over there stirred up a fair amount of interest over there. Dave Cooper (sustaining member) claimed I was defiling his holy thread with the jew Neier. The first moderator pulled it. I came back with the comment about Neier supporting the 78 Skokie march, and JohnJayTree I think it left it on there and actually gave me a response. Then finally in the morning the whole exchange was purged.
I've made more posts on that book "American Nazi's and the Radical Right" and have yet to get one up there. I may have to go to "opposing views". Pretty crazy I'd think from someone with my viewpoints to any mainstream person.
Sure tells a lot about Stormfront, probably what Martin Lindstedt said about it being a cash cow is right. You get the FR mentality, not wanting to stir up discussions that irritate your big-money core. Also why I've sort of given up on forums away from here. To interact productively you really have to know quite about the rules of the game, and clearly they're always changing and difficult to learn almost everywhere.
I've met more than one or two ex-Stormfronters that'd agree with your theory but for almost exactly the opposite reasons.[/QUOTE]Naturally.
2005-04-27 11:16 | User Profile
Well, this is interesting. The Stormfront powers that be have sort of decided that my reference is too controversial, so their censoring all my posts that reference that book. I'm going to just start keeping a running log.
I have some opinions on what this all means, but I'll just let the record speak for itself for now. It does strike me however with all the criticism we give JR for opportunistic censoring, these guys are starting to look just like the ADL. Perhaps we forget sometimes part of the nature of the people we are dealing with :ph34r:. Its always a trip to see these groups, who always whine about the efforts to shut down internet hate speech, draw such a broad-brush against statements it itself considers hate, that is opposed to WN/NS.
Not of course that we have ever maintained we are free-speech absolutists here, although I lean that way for than some others here. But I think common sense usually tells you that even totalitarian parties usually favor free speech when they are in the minority and out of power. For the fairy simple reason that free speech tends to disprortionately favor opponents to the status quo, as usually the content find no great reason to speak out, as much as the discontent.
Anyway, here's a couple of recent posts, for the record. Perhaps since we're a "featured site" (:lol:)some SFers will come over here and see them.
So wen we start seeing censorship at this stage, it certainly is a portentious indication of where things would be headed if these guys ever succesfully plan to achieve more power than on the internet.
Let's face it, there are a lot of valid reasons to still oppose Foxman and Dees, but is their opposition to free speech really one of them?
2005-04-27 11:18 | User Profile
From
[URL=http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=198820]Kevin Strom Expelled From NA[/URL]
[QUOTE=Chicago Man1484]Well, If the so called leaders of the NA are so thick in the skull, Maybe true thinking people such as Strom and April Gaede would be better off in an organization that isn't corrupt and off course. It sounds to me that Mr. Gliebe has a little too much power. He's like the George Bush Jr., of the NA. I figure that if Kevin Alfred Strom leaves so does the Organization, "A name is just a name." [/QUOTE]Unfortunately it seems to me Dr. Pierce willed the whole NA to Gliebe, in keeping with the fuehrer[B]-prinzip[/B], as he willed all NA property to Gliebe personally. As Gliebe became the designate leader in accordance with the old [I]fuehrer-prinzip[/I] spirit [QUOTE]"The Party is Hitler just as the Party is Germany and Germany is Hitler"
[URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17721]The Divine Revelation of Adolf Hitler[/URL] [/QUOTE] Substitute of course Pierce/Gliebe for Hitler, America for Germany, and NA for Party, and you pretty much have the same situation.
2005-04-27 16:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE]He seems to have disliked the symbiotic way the Nazi's and jewish organizations feed off each other, and wished to in his own way distance himself from it by putting himself above it and people like Collin.[/QUOTE]Collin was Jewish, by the way.
2005-04-27 18:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]Collin was Jewish, by the way.[/QUOTE]You mean the same way Hitler was?
At least by SF/VNN type standards, he certainly seems to have worked very hard to fulfill MacDonald's dictum of jewish identity - working against jewish interests.
2005-04-28 00:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]You mean the same way Hitler was?
At least by SF/VNN type standards, he certainly seems to have worked very hard to fulfill MacDonald's dictum of jewish identity - working against jewish interests.[/QUOTE]
Ahh. This is, apparently, a post designed to provoke certain posters at OD.
2005-04-28 02:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Ahh. This is, apparently, a post designed to provoke certain posters at OD.
---------[/QUOTE]Yes, I suspect that post would have been moderated at SF. Aren't you glad you're here at OD, where you can hear the both sides of thestory? :lol:
2005-04-28 10:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=na Gaeil is gile]Iââ¬â¢ve never personally experienced any moderation on SF, but it's certainly a very heavily moderated site (albeit perhaps for different reasons in the Stormfront International section). The moderate (or hippy crypto-Jew according to some) JohnJoyTree has developed something of a hate club following during his tenure, he grates with the sort of WNs I term holistic anti-Semites.[/QUOTE]
I believe a number of my Stormfront posts were deleted, but I don't post over there often enough to be certain. John Joy Tree strikes me as a reasonable fellow (and apparently vice versa, based on his having given me reputation points :thumbsup: ).
2005-04-28 15:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE]You mean the same way Hitler was?[/QUOTE] No, Frank Collin from Chicago was Jewish in the same way that John Collin from Chicago (whom I know personally) and other Jews are Jewish. But thanks for asking, Okie.
2005-04-28 16:48 | User Profile
Only one question and it requieres only one answer, thanks.
Is this Stormfront site a Zionist, anti-Zionist or neutral site like we are???
2005-05-01 15:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Only one question and it requieres only one answer, thanks.
Is this Stormfront site a Zionist, anti-Zionist or neutral site like we are???[/QUOTE]
While neither Stormfront or OD take a lot of official positions (I'm not sure how a bunch of people arguing can be said to have taken an official position on anything), I think it would never-the-less be reasonable to characterize BOTH Stormfront and OD as rabidly anti-Zionist (albeit lacking the commonly intended derogatory implications of the descriptor "rabidly").
2005-05-01 15:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]While neither Stormfront or OD take a lot of official positions (I'm not sure how a bunch of people arguing can be said to have taken an official position on anything), I think it would never-the-less be reasonable to characterize BOTH Stormfront and OD as rabidly anti-Zionist (albeit lacking the commonly intended derogatory implications of the descriptor "rabidly").[/QUOTE]
While you're online, Kevin, what's your take on Shaun Walker as the new "official" National Alliance boss?
2005-05-01 15:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.]While you're online, Kevin, what's your take on Shaun Walker as the new "official" National Alliance boss?[/QUOTE]
Gliebe and Walker (or, as I like to call them, "Six-Shooter" - in reference to the time FBI agents simultaneously visited all six of Gliebe's girlfriends, and informed each one about the other five, in an attempt to inspire betrayal of the National Chairman on the part of one of his floozies - and "Walker: Texas Pain in the Ass") have always been two peas in a pod. They have always been working together to share in the spoils of their victory in the aftermath of the tragic death of Dr. William Pierce in the summer of 2002. This is an obvious and characteristically deceitful (as well as typically none-too-bright, nor likely to be effective) ploy to hornswaggle less active and informed members of the Alliance, who may have no idea who Shaun Walker is, and thus are intended to falsely assume that anything substantive has changed. It has not.
Irresponsible, incompetent, immoral, dishonest wastrels now hold official control over the National Alliance. That is why myself, along with hundreds of the best people in the Alliance (and probably just about all of them, eventually, although other than for the Salt Lake City Local Unit Coordinator and some of the SLC Local Unit memebrs, where there is some apparent residual - and misplaced - loyalty to the former SLC Local Unit coordinator Shaun Walker, we already have just about anyone in the Alliance who ever did anything other than send in their dues and pray for the Iranians to nuke Tel Aviv) have decided that we can deal with trying to resolve our various property (both physical and intellectual) issues with that criminal cabal which dominates affairs in Hillsboro, whether through the courts or whatnot, at such time as that would seem to be optimum, as the situation over there does continue to develop. Meanwhile, we can not abandon our commitment to engage in activism for advancement of the ideals of Western Civilization, and the interests of its Europid progenitors, thus we are now part of National Vanguard, which is the REAL National Alliance, albeit under a different name, as everyone already knows. Its sort of like when the Vlaams Blok got banned by the Belgian courts, so they became the Vlamms Belaang, and are stronger than ever.
2005-05-01 15:34 | User Profile
Thanks, Kevin. I'm no joiner, but see nothing to admire in the current West Virginia NA.
2005-05-01 15:34 | User Profile
So "are you Chinese or Japanese"?
Like I said "or neutral like we are" I didn't say that we are Zionist or anti-Zionist.
Now then, let's try one more time...... is Stormfrom A) Zionist B)anti-Zionist or C) neutral like we are.
I hate to sound like a child but before I go there raising hell (if they are Zionist) I want to be sure about it.
A) ? B) ? C) ?
2005-05-01 15:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Now then, let's try one more time...... is Stormfrom A) Zionist B)anti-Zionist or C) neutral like we are.
I hate to sound like a child but before I go there raising hell (if they are Zionist) I want to be sure about it.
A) ? B) ? C) ?[/QUOTE]
I don't see OD as neutral on the Zionism question, despite the fact Walter Yannis exercises his right to hold a contrarian view on it (due to his desire to expedite the removal of the Jews from our society). I see OD as clearly anti-Zionist. If anything, Stormfront is even MORE anti-Zionist. But I suppose its a matter of opinion, rather than objective fact, as you seem to be seeking.
2005-05-01 16:10 | User Profile
The correct answer is "B".
Kevin? I have gone into Jewish sites where I asked the following "any one here can tell me about the Jews and the Khazards?" and I was banned from the site.
And I am happy to say that I feel that we are "neutral" here in OD because I seen Jews posting their things with no bad consequences from our side.
Only a Jew would say that we are "anti-Zionist" only because our postings are not deleted like it would happen in a Zionist or Jewish site.
I wonder what ever happen to my good friend the Zionist Jew Jehuda, haven't seen him in a couple of day..... he says that he is an Ortodox Jew and yet his feelings are with the Zionists.
2005-05-08 05:41 | User Profile
(From [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?p=112642#post112642[/url])[QUOTE=Phantasm] Stormfront is a good example of how "controlled" the discussion process is on some of the boards now. Every time the discussion gets a little too controversial... the entire thread gets pulled. I'm not talking about vulgar posts either.
Someone criticizes criminal hero worship... the thread gets pulled.
Condemn the "Silent Brotherhood..." the thread gets pulled.
Poke fun at the black Nobel Prize winner... the thread gets pulled.
The censorship on that board has become so bad that many people are extremely restrained and subdued about what they post now.
This is why I post mostly on OD and the Phora now.
:)[/QUOTE]Yeah, looks like you've had the same experience with SF. You know, we hear so much about Hollywood Nazi types sometimes we forget there really are those types out there.
Now the odd thing is that most of the SFers seem like reasonable people especially from just reading their posts. But there seem to be a number who go around saying "you said Hitler's father was an illegitimate half-breed jew? You should be shot for slander"
2005-05-08 07:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I do wonder how much of these groups organizations, VNN, NA, etc. is cryptically underwritten by jewish organizations. It certainly makes a lot of sense for them, monetarily speaking.[/QUOTE] They are tolerated by those who oppose pro-white politics because costume Nazis are a powerful image which for many discredits the idea.
2005-05-08 20:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=neoclassical]They are tolerated by those who oppose pro-white politics because costume Nazis are a powerful image which for many discredits the idea.[/QUOTE]One of the main points I was making about the NA leadership.
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=112414&postcount=49[/url]
2005-05-12 00:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Yes, I suspect that post would have been moderated at SF. Aren't you glad you're here at OD, where you can hear the both sides of thestory? [/QUOTE]
I've reviewed the thread in question which includes two posts deleted from you and two posts deleted from moderators.
In your, shall we say, editorially declined contribution, you stated that the American Nazis owed their right to march through Skokie to this jew Aryeh Neier; not to their forefathers, not to their own law, not to their birthright, but to the legal maneuvering of this jew.
You quoted there, and here, this jew's [I]motive[/I] for taking up on behalf of Collins. Aryeh's compatriots, his fellow jews in the ACLU, found this support odious, by the way, they perhaps not being as clever. I quote again:
[I]The major national Jewish groups enjoy far more sophisticated leadership than is available to most other cause organisations in the United States. The leaders of these groups knew very well that the Nazi movement... is miniscule... that it has no prospect[s] ... They also know that a tiny Nazi movement serves the purposes of organised Jewry... It even makes it more difficult for the shapers of American foreign policy to abandon Israel... The Nazis deter the expression of anti semitism in forms which may be more palatable to the American public...[/I]
Cunning, machiavellian reasoning, which Aryeh successfully draped in the red, white and blue bunting of the First Amendment, while at root having nothing to do with it. However, even in light of this, you seem to credit the jew with a stand on principle.
Censorship issues at SF aside, the popular and respected member who started the thread objected to your observations and a staff member concurred with him.
Earlier in this thread we see you employing scare quotes and a smilie (of the LOL variety) to scoff at OD's status as a featured link at Stormfront. It's possible you have a [I]problem[/I] with your site being prominently featured there. You should clarify your attitude with Mr. Black, I think, who no doubt thought he was doing OD a bit of good. I suspect from your mocking references to SF lacing this thread that you don't see it quite the same way.
2005-05-12 03:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jack_boot]I've reviewed the thread in question which includes two posts deleted from you and two posts deleted from moderators. Glad you eventually found time to get around to it.
In your, shall we say, editorially declined contribution, you stated that the American Nazis owed their right to march through Skokie to this jew Aryeh Neier; not to their forefathers, not to their own law, not to their birthright, but to the legal maneuvering of this jew. I also omitted the providence of God, which may or may not bother you. Its a complex world, and certainly one doesn't have time to individually mention all the chance occurrences required to make something like this transpire. But ACLU head Neier, in leading the ACLU in its highly publicized defense of the Skokie marchers, certainly deserves some of the credit, however you hate to admit it.
You quoted there, and here, this jew's [I]motive[/I] for taking up on behalf of Collins. Aryeh's compatriots, his fellow jews in the ACLU, found this support odious, by the way, they perhaps not being as clever. I quote again:
[I]The major national Jewish groups enjoy far more sophisticated leadership than is available to most other cause organisations in the United States. The leaders of these groups knew very well that the Nazi movement... is miniscule... that it has no prospect[s] ... They also know that a tiny Nazi movement serves the purposes of organised Jewry... It even makes it more difficult for the shapers of American foreign policy to abandon Israel... The Nazis deter the expression of anti semitism in forms which may be more palatable to the American public...[/I]
Cunning, machiavellian reasoning, which Aryeh successfully draped in the red, white and blue bunting of the First Amendment, while at root having nothing to do with it. However, even in light of this, you seem to credit the jew with a stand on principle. It certainly was a stand on the principle of free speech, one which he took a great deal of heat for from his fellow jews, although he may have had good pragmatic reasons for endorsing this freedom of speech. His reason was that the whole thing was a publicity stunt by Collin, who the jewish community by reacting hysterically was inadvertently aiding.
Maybe you're mad at him, for helping spoil your good friend Collin's scheme. Well I think Hollywood Nazi tactics like Collin's are counterproductive to the efforts of decent gentile Americans, and decent Americans of any sort really. I don't see what your beef is. Neier as you note was being smart, smarter than either his jewish compatriots or the Skokie marchers. There's no law against being smart, however much some may both want and need it.
Censorship issues at SF aside, the popular and respected member who started the thread objected to your observations and a staff member concurred with him. How do you put "censorship issues aside"? That's what this whole thing is about.
Although I see you personally don't value free speech.
[QUOTE=Jack Boot]Personally I'm a little torn on this, since I wouldn't mind a precedent for locking up jews like Teitelbaum when they open their yaps. Let's face it, a "jewish exception" to the First would have saved us a lot of trouble.[URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=97875&postcount=5]Take A Few Minutes To Stand Up For Free Speech[/URL][/QUOTE]
There are a number of reasons WN's traditionally have supported free speech, even named their organizations around this principle, such as Marc Lemire of the Canadian Free Speech Coalition. The number one reason though is that Wn's are always about the first one's hit by restrictions. With such strong pragmatic incentives, its rather interesting to see types like yourself soi openly oppose the principle.
It really makes it more difficult to enjoy its protections yourself, which is what you owe your Stormfront forum too. Sort of like a Muslim arguing for religious tolerance and simultaneously calling for Islamic law.
Earlier in this thread we see you employing scare quotes and a smilie (of the LOL variety) to scoff at OD's status as a featured link at Stormfront. It's possible you have a [I]problem[/I] with your site being prominently featured there. You should clarify your attitude with Mr. Black, I think, who no doubt thought he was doing OD a bit of good. I suspect from your mocking references to SF lacing this thread that you don't see it quite the same way.[/QUOTE]Mr. Black can do what he wants, but I think there's no doubt he recognizes the step we do take here to accomodate positions and posters which are censored most everywhere else except at SF, and where realisticaly you can post a great deal if not the vast majority of the stuff you generally se at SF if you are so inclined. Our aim was in furthering free speech, now if the principle aim of SF in featuring our site and of the posters posting here is to abolish free speech, that seems a little odd. If SF is expressing it appreciation for letting its members post here, while ODers aren't allowed to post anything at SF but an occasional [I]Sieg Heil [/I] - well its still a free country, and I'm not going to argue against your own rights to say what you wish, however silly it seems to you.
2005-05-12 10:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Glad you eventually found time to get around to it.
There are 500 threads a day going up over there, Okie, what do you want?
[QUOTE]It certainly was a stand on the principle of free speech, one which he took a great deal of heat for from his fellow jews, although he may have had good pragmatic reasons for endorsing this freedom of speech. His reason was that the whole thing was a publicity stunt by Collin, who the jewish community by reacting hysterically was inadvertently aiding.[/QUOTE]
Right; jew good, nazi bad. Gotcha.
[QUOTE]Maybe you're mad at him, for helping spoil your good friend Collin's scheme. Well I think Hollywood Nazi tactics like Collin's are counterproductive to the efforts of decent gentile Americans, and decent Americans of any sort really. I don't see what your beef is.[/QUOTE]
There are a few decent gentile Americans. My beef is certainly not with them. "Gentile-American". Hmmm. I dunno. "Gento-American"? No, that's not it. "Goyo-American"...."Shikso-American"....
[QUOTE]How do you put "censorship issues aside"? That's what this whole thing is about.[/QUOTE]
Not what I popped in to discuss.
[QUOTE]Although I see you personally don't value free speech.[/QUOTE]
That pull-out of an offhand remark doesn't exactly crystallize my position. It's a complex world, and one does not always take the time to mention every nuance in consideration of the principle. Thanks for the lecture, and being a goy I certainly have a good lecture coming, but it doesn't really apply to me.
If SF is expressing it appreciation for letting its members post here, while ODers aren't allowed to post anything at SF but an occasional [I]Sieg Heil [/I] - well its still a free country, and I'm not going to argue against your own rights to say what you wish, however silly it seems to you.[/QUOTE]
Haven't found any Sieg Heils among your contributions to Stormfront. Hmmm. Am I an "ODer" or an "SFer"? What if I post a Sieg Heil on this discussion board but not that one? Would that make me a costume net nazi, or would that make OD a net nazi discussion board?
Let's find out. SIEG HEIL!
2005-05-12 12:22 | User Profile
Jack! Hey, man. Nice to see you again.
Where you been, son?
2005-05-12 17:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jack_boot]There are 500 threads a day going up over there, Okie, what do you want? A handkerchief to dry my tears of compassion. :crybaby:
Right; jew good, nazi bad. Gotcha.
Actually, as I've been reminded here, its more like jew-disguised-as-nazi-fetischist bad. But I guess you play to the "you can fool some of the people all the time" crowd.
[QUOTE]Not what I popped in to discuss....
That pull-out of an offhand remark doesn't exactly crystallize my position. It's a complex world, and one does not always take the time to mention every nuance in consideration of the principle. Thanks for the lecture, and being a goy I certainly have a good lecture coming, but it doesn't really apply to me.[/QUOTE]Hmm... what [B]does[/B] apply to you? Only what you want to, obviously.
Haven't found any Sieg Heils among your contributions to Stormfront. Hmmm. Aha. So that's why you pull my posts! :lol: > Am I an "ODer" or an "SFer"? Compare your posting rates. What if I post a Sieg Heil on this discussion board but not that one? Would that make me a costume net nazi, or would that make OD a net nazi discussion board?
Let's find out. SIEG HEIL![/QUOTE]For the benefit of your SF monitors I presume. You don't want anyone to think you're coming over here and getting soft, even turning into a crypto Johnjoytree!
BTW, FYI, three "sieg heil's" is the proper protocol. Let's keep it quiet though so you don't get busted down a rank. :lol:
2005-05-12 18:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Our aim was in furthering free speech, now if the principle aim of SF in featuring our site and of the posters posting here is to abolish free speech, that seems a little odd.[/QUOTE]
I guess I'm just an odd kind of guy. I don't mind legitimate criticism of Stormfront. I've got plenty myself.
But, as I presume you know as an administrator here, I not only promote this board, I also help you in other ways. I've always admired this board and wanted it to stay online.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Sure tells a lot about Stormfront, probably what Martin Lindstedt said about it being a cash cow is right.[/QUOTE]
Now that's an interesting reference to the vilest poster I've ever encountered on the Net (which is saying a lot), and who was just arrested for child molestation.
That "cash cow," which barely pays my basic server costs of $1381/month, much less other expenses, is supported by contributors like Jack_Boot. Another moderator, who also sends a substantial contribution every month to help pay hosting for her and her husband's two websites, first brought this thread to our attention. I guess you can understand their concern, but I told them you were "just annoying, not a big deal."
Don Black
2005-05-12 20:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Midgard]I guess I'm just an odd kind of guy. I don't mind legitimate criticism of Stormfront. I've got plenty myself. Well I was referring as my whole post shows in context, to the free speech issue in general, and the specific way Jack Boot seems to object to it, in terms that he characterizes as ambiguous, but don't seem ambiguous at all to me.
[QUOTE=Jack Boot]Personally I'm a little torn on this, since I wouldn't mind a precedent for locking up jews like Teitelbaum when they open their yaps. Let's face it, a "jewish exception" to the First would have saved us a lot of trouble.Take A Few Minutes To Stand Up For Free Speech[/QUOTE]
We all know exceptions to liberties tend to be creeping, or galloping. Probably wouldn't be long before "jewish sympathizers" would also be locked up. Which Jack Boot BTW has already accused me of being.
Now Jack Boot was commenting at the time as the sole representative of Stormfront, on the reasons the featured link was posted and more specifically on the reason Jack Boot himself was posting here in regards to free speech. Jack Boot is a self-asserted opponent of free speech and civil liberties, which we by contrast are supporters of. We oppose organizations from Free Republic to the ADL for censoring speech, and set up this site to offer opposing views. Basically we'd assume Stormfront really acknowledges their similar position, as an outlet for the type of anti-PC views that are increasingly hard to safely express almost anywhere. It surprises me to hear any member of Stormfront act like he is unaware of this position of White Nationalism.
I was just speculating as the the featured link, as if Jack Boot himself had made the decision to put it there. Certainly from Jack Boot's viewpoint I don't think he'd be comfortable with the endorsement. We feature a wide range of views ranging from people sympathetic to National Socialism to people who might charitably say are rather unsympathetic overall. I suspect Jack Boot if he was running things might run over here and demand people expressing such positions be banned. For the sake of argument I was making this position. I'm fairly certain you are not so dogmatic, and have a better appreciation of what we are trying to do here, which is serve as a forum for all the radical right, not just National Socialists and opinions supportive of it. I actually thought really that Stormfront was trying to some extent to serve the same purpose, honestly. I may have overestimated this to some extent, but it still seems in some ways true. As I and others note on this thread though the moderation policy seems inconsistent with our understanding of how this might come about. Stormfront of course is entitled to do things anyway it and you choose to do it.
We can do both go on together for the cause of nationalism, sailing our own boats. I've always thought more unity and cooperation on the broad "radical right" was necessary, and to that end more discussion needed. To that end I occasionally must mention when things seem to be getting in the way pf that cooperation and communication. Certainly when I am unable to post on Stormfront relating to matters of significance without getting my posts removed that does not help communication - its difficult to communicate if you are not allowed to speak. Well let's speak here then. That's what Tex set up Original Dissent for.
[QUOTE]But, as I presume you know as an administrator here, I not only promote this board, I also help you in other ways. I've always admired this board and wanted it to stay online.[/QUOTE]Certainly we appreciate your help and assistance. I wil not think less of it, even assuming you continue to maintain what most people say is a quite strongly moderated posting policy. If I was disappointed at the fact that our understanding apparently does not extend beyond this, to the point of allowing discussion among Stormfronters of things we would consider rather basic, such as the questioning of many aspects of NS dogma, this does not transcend this.
[QUOTE]Now that's an interesting reference to the vilest poster I've ever encountered on the Net (which is saying a lot), and who was just arrested for child molestation.[/QUOTE]Martin certainly is unique, and opinions vary on him from mildly amusing to just below several feet of pig manure. If occasionally I toy with some of his speculations, it is just for lack of any better source on the things he asserts knowledge about, which are still a mystery basically to most of us, like the politics of VNN and CI.
If occasionally I lapse and give his statements more credance than they are worth (probably anything at all) I do apologize.
That "cash cow," which barely pays my basic server costs of $1381/month, much less other expenses, is supported by contributors like Jack_Boot. Another moderator, who also sends a substantial contribution every month to help pay hosting for her and her husband's two websites, first brought this thread to our attention. I guess you can understand their concern, but I told them you were "just annoying, not a big deal."
Don Black[/QUOTE]I appreciate your words to the moderators, and I won't deny that you aren't the only one who occasionally finds me annoying. :wink: I also am appreciative of the support of all those who are in a position to support nationalist oriented forums, you for Original Dissent and your moderators for Stormfront. It's one of the things that allows opposition to our PC world to go on.I just hope the moderators remember to understand that for their support of the movement they give to be effective they must often put up with opinions different than their own, and not try to hard to micromanage things.
Those were my opinions, and it appears several others with experience at Stormfront. We certainly didn't mean to be disrespectful, just expressing honest differences in what appeared to be our philosophies. Certainly many ODers may not nderstand or agree with a lot abour SF, just like many SFers and VNNers certainly don't understand or appreciate OD 100%. Probably we'll never agree completely, but in view of the common obstacles and enemies and increasingly hostile environment all sites like us face, it would seem to behoove us to try to work together as much as possible. We appreciate your efforts in that direction, if occassionally this leads us to some disappointment at the size of the differences that still exist, take it with a grain of salt.
Okiereddust
2005-05-13 07:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Midgard]But, as I presume you know as an administrator here, I not only promote this board, I also help you in other ways. I've always admired this board and wanted it to stay online.[/QUOTE]
Well, if it wasn't for you Don, OD wouldn't exist. Period. Ultimately that's the bottom line and certainly transcends any other considerations.
I also know that Okie's heart is in the right place with regards to trying to fashion some kind of consensus among the disparate factions of the broader 'Right'. That in itself may be an impossible task since there are more than a few hard-heads in every corner. In general, it's always been my policy to remain loyal, or at least publicly neutral, to those who aren't hostile to my position/beliefs. At the end of the day I guess I've just tried to carve out and maintain a little corner for how I understand and make sense of this crazy world.
OD's just a blip on the radar next to SF, but I'm sure we've both got our crosses to bear laboring in our respective areas. Obviously something keeps us hanging around and coming back to do what we do and I only hope that some day those things start to dovetail. I guess time will tell.
I know that Okie shares my thanks for everything you've done for OD Don, these kinds of minor dust-ups aside. I'm sure you know much better than most of the rest of us that we can't get too worked up over the little things and I hope and trust we can continue to co-exist with the bigger picture clearly in mind.
2005-05-13 08:38 | User Profile
Well said, Colonel. Mr. Black is a true internet pioneer and a genuine champion of Our People. He's worth any three dozen quisling RimJobs. :thumbsup:
An utterly unmoderated board would like like the "-1" zone of Liberty Forum, teeming with trolls, psychopaths, bores and provocateurs...
2005-05-14 01:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Jack! Hey, man. Nice to see you again.
Where you been, son?[/QUOTE]
Hello. I don't get over as often as I'd like, more's the pity, because I consider you one of the finest contributors to either discussion board. Worth reading.
I should clarify a couple of points, if anyone cares, the first as to why I butted in on this thread. I just didn't like the mocking tone. I did not have sanction from Mr. Black to post here complaining about it and of course I do not speak for him. Just my personal opinion.
As for my position on free speech, as a matter of fact I do think that certain restrictions need to be placed on an alien fifth column bent on our destruction. The first restriction is to keep them out in the first place; having failed that, the jews should necessarily be relegated to second-class citizen status, as they have been throughout the history of the European nations until the latter half of the 19th century. We see where lifting such restrictions upon the activities and influence of the Tribe have brought us: to the very brink of disaster.
2005-05-16 18:17 | User Profile
Every board has its own editorial character and group spirit.
The worst error a political webmaster can allow is permitting the noise ratio to exceed that of signal...
2005-05-17 22:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jack_boot]Hello. I don't get over as often as I'd like, more's the pity, because I consider you one of the finest contributors to either discussion board. Worth reading.
I should clarify a couple of points, if anyone cares, the first as to why I butted in on this thread. I just didn't like the mocking tone. I did not have sanction from Mr. Black to post here complaining about it and of course I do not speak for him. Just my personal opinion. Since on your invitation he's spoke for himself, that's water under the bridge. [quote=Jack_boot]That pull-out of an offhand remark doesn't exactly crystallize my position. It's a complex world, and one does not always take the time to mention every nuance in consideration of the principle.
Very complex obviously.
As for my position on free speech, as a matter of fact I do think that certain restrictions need to be placed on an alien fifth column bent on our destruction. The first restriction is to keep them out in the first place; having failed that, the jews should necessarily be relegated to second-class citizen status, as they have been throughout the history of the European nations until the latter half of the 19th century. We see where lifting such restrictions upon the activities and influence of the Tribe have brought us: to the very brink of disaster.[/QUOTE]It is comforting to know a Stormfront moderator has such a well thought out position on free speech. :unsure:
To summarize this discussion, so far, you did not elaborated in any detail upon your policy, or really what freedom of speech you think should be allowed to remain. In the context say of the Third Reich (say what Third Reich restrictions on free speech you consider too broad, and what Third Reich restrictions on free speech you consider inadequate.) Not that it is really necessary, I think this thread is sort of self-explanatory on the type of free speech that you would like to preserve in our society. If you wander back feel free to set me straight.
2005-05-17 22:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.]Every board has its own editorial character and group spirit. As does every group. Al Capone's gang sitting around eating dinner had its own editorial character and group spirit, like the scene in Goodfellows. The question is, which do you are a model to be followed, which do you think are good and which are bad?
The worst error a political webmaster can allow is permitting the noise ratio to exceed that of signal...[/QUOTE]So you're saying political webmasters should mute all discussions so all that comes out is sweet music?