← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 3820 | Posts: 30 | Started: 2002-12-03
2002-12-03 10:59 | User Profile
GOV'T FOR SALE
December 3, 2002 -- BUSH administration officials and leading U.S. senators responded very differently to the news that Princess Haifa al-Faisal, wife of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, had given many thousands of dollars to a person connected to two of the 9/11 suicide hijackers. Their difference highlights a problem that needs addressing through congressional legislation; ways to prevent undue Saudi influence through the spread of its money.
Senators spoke out forthrightly and honestly on the issue raised by the princesss donations.
Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.): "Either [the Saudis] have to change or the relationship that we have with Saudi Arabia is going to change dramatically. For too many generations, certainly years, they have pacified and accommodated themselves to the most extreme fanatical elements of Islam."
John McCain (R-Ariz.): "The list goes on and on of Saudi failures and the central role that they have played in one way or another in the rise of Islamic fundamentalism all over the world."
Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): "The Saudis are on all sides of every issue. We, in some ways, have had a good relationship with them over the years, and in other ways, it appears as if they're funding our enemies.
Richard Shelby (R-Ala.): "The Saudis have got a lot of answering to do in my judgment."
The senators also criticized U.S. law enforcement's reluctance to deal with the problem of Saudi financing of terrorism. Lieberman noted, "The FBI and maybe other parts of our government have seemed to want to almost defend the Saudis, or not be as aggressive as they should be about the Saudis." Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) concurred: "It seems every time the Saudis are involved, we stop [doing a proper investigation]."
In contrast, the Bush administration offered excuses for the couple and glossed over the problems of law enforcement. Secretary of State Colin Powell poured cold water on the revelations: "I think it's unlikely that Prince Bandar or Her Royal Highness would do anything that would support terrorist activity" - a most unusual endorsement, given that the FBI is actively investigating this matter.
The State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, praised Saudi efforts to prevent the financing of terrorism as very strong, though he did concede that there is always more to be done.
The president's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, promoted the self-serving Saudi line that Osama bin Laden specifically recruited Saudi hijackers for the 9/11 attacks to "drive a wedge" between the United States and Saudi Arabia. (This idea is palpably false: That 15 out of 19 hijackers were Saudi was not a political ploy but the result of the fact, as Stephen Schwartz explains, that "Saudis are the largest national contingent by far in al Qaeda.")
Why this undue solicitude for Saudi feelings? This hedging by the executive branch fits a pattern going back almost 60 years, to when President Franklin D. Roosevelt met the Saudi king in 1945.
Since then, U.S. politicians, diplomats, flag officers and lobbyists have enjoyed a cozy relationship with their counterparts on the Saudi side. The tie is premised on Americans - Democrats and Republicans alike -accommodating the kingdom's wishes and in return, being plied with substantial sums of money, either at the time or after they leave government service.
A culture of corruption, in other words, pervades the upper reaches of the White House and several departments; it does not, however, extend to Congress, perhaps because the Saudis do not understand the workings or importance of an elected body and so have not tried to buy it.
Effectively fighting the war on terror urgently requires the passing of legislation that breaks up the cozy power-money nexus in the executive branch by making sure that U.S. officials cannot tap into Saudi funds after they retire from government service.
Such laws should be high on the new Congress agenda when it convenes in January.
Daniel Pipes ( www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Militant Islam Reaches America (W.W. Norton).
*It's op-eds like this that underscore why the rabid rhetoric of a VNN is so very, very necessary.....somebody has to say, in a loud and unmistakable voice, that a notorious Zionist warmonger Pipes using his wiles to agitate for New Legislation to prevent ALIEN INFLUENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE (!!!!) is just a ZOG gangster intimidating quisling gentiles with false patriotism, who sees America as a Jewish business district and protectorate. *
2002-12-03 12:02 | User Profile
It's op-eds like this that underscore why the rabid rhetoric of a VNN is so very, very necessary.....somebody has to say, in a loud and unmistakable voice
I totally agree. VNN is now ranked 21,977 out of the millions of web pages out there. VNN's popularity is the true barometer for the state of opposition to Jewish power because of ITZ utter ruthlessness. VNN cuts through the left-right political crap and shows us that the true political spectrum runs from Semitism (serving the Jew) to anti-Semitism (not serving the Jew). This is what Jews fear most, the realization on the part of the public that all their ideologies are frauds save one, Semitism- the promotion of Jews at the expence of the rest of us.
2002-12-03 14:18 | User Profile
VNN is popular the same way that J-Lo is popular when she shakes her half-bare rump in front of the cameras. People just love a spectacle and in that sense, VNN and the Howard Stern show are two peas in a pod.
Rather unfortunate in my opinion, but trashy, crude and base is definitely the formula for success these days. I don't think it was always that way. One thing I admire about a man like David Duke is how he conducts himself.
2002-12-03 17:55 | User Profile
My take on VNN is that they're too aggressive for their own good. They take the whole "angry white male" concept to its most extreme (then again, I guess someone would one of these days.) It seems to me that the authors at get some kind of perverse pleasure in berating and dehumanizing the opposition, which I think has the potential to backfire on them if they're not careful.
In short, I don't think it would kill VNN to ease up on their ruthless tactics and try to be less crude. Look at the National Alliance. They've been on the frontline of pro-white dissent for years and have retained their civility.
2002-12-03 21:39 | User Profile
But America became "trashy, crude and base" without Alex Linder's assistance long before VNN.
If VNN's hyperacidity makes the strong invective served up here seem middle-of-the-road...that's the point. Somebody has to play The Bad Guy in order to raise the bar for the rest of us, and if you chuckle at my including "VNN" and "raise the bar" in the same sentence, let me emphasize that Richard Perle and Abe Foxman run my country, even though nobody ever elected them so much as dogcatcher; Murray Rothstein runs your kid's world in a way you can't dream of doing; and the Sulzbergers, Zuckermans, Murdochs et al have a handshake agreement on what can & can't be discussed and disseminated among 'free' people, maintaining a tight control on the information flow. And only last year, George Bush announced an undeclared open-ended war against all of Israel's enemies that would not be 'won' in our lifetimes!
What could possibly be more "trashy, crude and base" than these cold and inescapable realities? Is anyone here naive enough to think that these people will voluntarily give us back our country but only if we wear a smart-looking suit, watch the potty mouth and make a really convincing speech?
"Itz coming" has two possible meanings: either the West is restored or lost forever. Either we live or we die. Don't kid yourself into thinking either will be genteel or dignified.
As for the NA - I won't knock em in principle but they were never going to serve any function besides being a low flame to simmer over until something more useful came along to replace them; their purpose, as sentinels sounding the alarm while were all asleep, was a noble one, but Pierce is gone and it's time to move to the next plateau up. (And by the way - Linder has done more to boost their membership than they ever did for themselves. Without reciprocation, I might add.) Pierce had many many good things to say and I still read (and recommend) his radio op-eds....but nobody sequestered on a mountaintop in the boonies was ever going to "lead" anything, I'm sorry. (Sure enough, he's not gone six months and already they're squabbling into insignificance.) And when Pierce was the loudest voice, the same folks who now find Linder problematic tut-tutted at him for being too crude and extreme! Like him or not, Linder is doing geometrically what the NA struggled to do arithmetically, at a fraction of the overhead, not to mention the pomp & c, as Wodehouse might've phrased it. Whether or not you think his tone is regrettable - and contrary to Foxmanthink, most of VNN's readers can recognize fiery rhetoric without confusing it for a direct order to kill from the High Command - white people ought to be grateful for him. His scorched-earth opinions have ironically made America safer for genteel, 'principled' anti-Semitism.
2002-12-03 21:51 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Dec 3 2002, 10:18 **VNN is popular the same way that J-Lo is popular when she shakes her half-bare rump in front of the cameras. People just love a spectacle and in that sense, VNN and the Howard Stern show are two peas in a pod.
Rather unfortunate in my opinion, but trashy, crude and base is definitely the formula for success these days. I don't think it was always that way. One thing I admire about a man like David Duke is how he conducts himself.**
TD, very true--this society does seem to accord success to that which is more base, across the board. Not all VNN articles are like that, however. Some are quite sophisticated. Sometimes I fear the high-quality articles there might be overshadowed or buried by the crude hype, though. If the crudity is overdone on the front page at VNN, as some often suggest, it may have the effect of turning off a lot of good people who would otherwise find things there to inform and enlighten them. First impressions matter, and all that....
2002-12-03 22:00 | User Profile
If VNN's hyperacidity makes the strong invective served up here seem middle-of-the-road...that's the point. Somebody has to play The Bad Guy in order to raise the bar for the rest of us
IR, this is quite correct as well. VNN does have a place, and it does have the potential to generate some maneuvering room in some quarters. Of course, there are those who argue that it makes everyone else with similar concerns about the suppressed "National Question" issues in America look bad. They might have a point, too. I can see both sides; It's hard to be able to predict exactly how VNN's influence will play out in the end--especially since its message might play well to one part of the audience out there than another. Only time will tell, I suppose. VNN's been around since, what, the year 2000? I'm going to keep watching and see where it all ends up in the coming years.
What I am certain of is that both options need to be on the table for now: the VNN-level sites and the OD, Amren, VDARE, Duke-level sites as well. In the end, the "best man will win." They don't necessarily have to cooperate, or compete, either though. They both speak to different parts of the White audience out there, so they should do their own thing best and at least try to minimize the "intramural sniping" you once referred to.
2002-12-03 22:04 | User Profile
Here's a piece of 'dignified' trash that's cruder & baser than all of VNN's spintros laid end to end. This was read by as many as a million people yesterday......
[url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/12022002/postopinion/opedcolumnists/63304.htm]http://www.nypost.com/seven/12022002/posto...nists/63304.htm[/url]
A SINGLE WAR
December 2, 2002 -- THERE is at least one silver lining in the ghastly carnage in Mombasa, Kenya: The homicidal swine who turned the Paradise Hotel into an inferno blew away the illusion that Israels war on terrorism can be separated from America's. This is a myth treasured by many in the U.S. government, especially at the State Department, who believe that America is right to use overwhelming force against its enemies, but that Israel should show "restraint" no matter the provocation. While America roots out the source of our terrorist problems in Afghanistan, Washington sternly admonishes Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that he must not touch a hair of Yasser Arafat's head - even though Arafat is at least as much responsible for terrorism as Mullah Omar once was.
This attitude reached new heights of absurdity after the targeted killing of six al Qaeda terrorists in Yemen by a CIA-operated Predator unmanned aerial vehicle. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher took pains to argue that there was absolutely no comparison between this action and Israel's targeted killings of terrorists, which the U.S. government continues to condemn.
But what if the people attacking America are also the people attacking Israel? If it turns out that al Qaeda was responsible for the Kenya attack, as now appears likely, this conclusion will be inescapable. Yet the evidence already strongly pointed in that direction long before last week's bombing.
One only has to think back to 9/11: The suicidal attacks on America caused great grief in Israel - and undisguised joy in the Palestinian territories.
Though Arafat took pains to quash coverage of pro-al Qaeda demonstrations, the Palestinian reaction was hardly an aberration. Remember that in the 1991 Gulf War the Palestinians also openly rooted for America's enemy, Saddam Hussein.
It's more than a matter of rooting interest, however; there are also much closer connections between anti-American terrorists and anti-Israeli terrorists.
At the broadest level, both groups represent an extremist Islamist ideology that revels in suicidal attacks and seeks to inflict maximum civilian casualties. The 9/11 hijackers were similar in spirit to those who tried to blow an Israeli airliner out of the sky over Kenya with SA-7 missiles.
Not all Palestinian terrorists, much less all Palestinians, are Islamists - but fanatical groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad are at the forefront of the current Al Aqsa intifida.
Within extremist Islamic circles, hatred of America ("the Great Satan") and Israel ("the Little Satan") go hand in hand. The Islamists even debate which is their greatest enemy: Some argue for America, on the grounds that Israel is merely an outpost of the "Crusader" empire centered in the United States; others suggest that the "Zionist entity" is the greater threat, on the grounds that a Zionist conspiracy secretly controls the U.S. government. But there is no denying that the two are closely linked in the Islamists' minds because both countries stand for everything they detest: religious freedom, women's rights, democracy, pluralism.
Thus Hezbollah (Party of God), the Iranian-sponsored Lebanese terrorist group, has carried out major operations against both Israel and America. Hezbollah is believed to be behind the blowing up of the U.S. embassy and the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, the kidnapping and killing of numerous Americans in the 1980s, and the bombing of the U.S. Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996. At the same time, Hezbollah has waged a relentless war against Israel from its bases in Southern Lebanon, a war that has not slowed down even after its ostensible provocation (Israels occupation of part of Lebanon) ended in 2000.
Many observers wrongly focus on the divisions between terrorist groups. Some, such as Hezbollah, are Shiites. Others, like al Qaeda, are led by Sunnis. Still others, such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, have secular leaders. But even rivals cooperate in their common campaign against Israel and the West, much as disparate terrorist groups of the 1970s and 1980s (the Baader Meinhof Gang, Red Army Faction, Irish Republican Army, etc.) worked together under the tutelage of Communist intelligence services.
The modern Islamist movement began with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in the 1950s-'60s, but has since spread throughout the Middle East and beyond, from the Palestinian territories to Pakistan. All these groups see themselves as fellow jihadis (holy warriors) for the Dar al Islam (house of Islam) against the Dar al Harb (house of war - or all non-Islamic societies).
If we are ever to defeat them, we must see them as they see themselves. If we do, we'll realize that the Israeli conflict is not a "distraction" from the war on terrorism - it is the war on terrorism.
*Max Boot is the Olin senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power. *
2002-12-04 03:20 | User Profile
Linder isn't anybody's leader, nor does he have an organization, nor does he seek an organization, so attacking him as a 'false messiah' is completely, utterly wrongheaded.
Dig it: Linder is a private citizen who started a rantsite in which he (and I assume some of his friends) could vent without censorial constraints, who happened to tap in to a gestalt bigger than anybody imagined, the free-floating rage of the culturally bound & gagged. This makes all sorts of people nervous for all sorts of reasons.
VNN is not serialized chapters of a political-manifesto-in-progress, it's essentially an enlarged version of what it originally started as: a funnel for Linder (and his readers and contributors) to pour in not just blind rage but their sarcasm and irreverence: all of the taboos imposed by the predatory elements of American society and ruthlessly enforced by their prey. If you want people to think the word 'nier', all you need do is violently prohibit some people from ever saying it....this, in effect, is the trigger for VNN. Forbidden speech already sounds 'extreme' and 'inflammatory' when merely uttered in low tones; defiantly shouting it is giving to give some people conniptions.
VNN happens to be a vast source of news items that get cut and pasted right here on OD (a number of OD'ers will second me on this) that simply cannot be found localized at one single url otherwise. Contributor John Cartney, a fount of erudition, has posted important excerpts and full works (some translated into English for the first time) from some of the most important, and most neglected, writers and thinkers of the past two centuries. Linder's own 'scatological' commentary reminds less of mercenary pottymouths like Howard Stern and more like a Osterized commingling of Jim Goad, Ivan Stang & Lenny Bruce (sorry Alex but it's true) but the tradition he's working from goes right back to Jonathan Swift and past that to Aristophanes - the gleeful butchery of sacred cows; sacred only to those in power and those out of power forced to bow before them for so long they've forgotten why they're supposed to be angry!
As far as the occasional no-neck who writes in to VNN, so what? You're not under the delusion that doesn't happen here as well, are you? Frankly, I read more chilling displays of sub-critical thought in a FR day than a VNN month.
In short - and I'm not actually a fulltime Linder defender, I have my cranky moments with him too - if your point is you don't want him for a "leader", relax. He's not shopping for "followers" (indeed, he emphasizes repeatedly the need for whites to self-generate their own defiance at the local level whenever/wherever possible rather than waiting for a puff of white smoke from West Virginia - more empowering sentiments than any offered at VDARE or TAC!)
2002-12-04 03:32 | User Profile
As far as the occasional no-neck who writes in to VNN, so what? You're not under the delusion that doesn't happen here as well, are you? Frankly, I read more chilling displays of sub-critical thought in a FR day than a VNN month.
An astute observation. What's really at work here is that at FR, you are allowed to thunder about "nuking ragheads" and the like, because TPTB approve of such unvarnished displays among the masses toward the "official list of targets." It serves the elites' agenda for the FR version of sub-critical thought to prevail. It's powerful because that's how most Americans are. The average Joe isn't like us at OD--the average guy is crude and unreflective. He just reacts and goes off in the direction he's pointed toward, taking his cues from the media and the like.
Maybe the reason why the Jews work to yank VNN all the time is because VNN plays this game too, with the average Joe, redirecting his impulses toward unapproved targets.
2002-12-04 03:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Dec 3 2002, 23:41 > Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Dec 4 2002, 03:32 > As far as the occasional no-neck who writes in to VNN, so what? You're not under the delusion that doesn't happen here as well, are you? Frankly, I read more chilling displays of sub-critical thought in a FR day than a VNN month.
An astute observation. What's really at work here is that at FR, you are allowed to thunder about "nuking ragheads" and the like, because TPTB approve of such unvarnished displays among the masses toward the "official list of targets." It serves the elites' agenda for the FR version of sub-critical thought to prevail. It's powerful because that's how most Americans are. The average Joe isn't like us at OD--the average guy is crude and unreflective. He just reacts and goes off in the direction he's pointed toward, taking his cues from the media and the like.
Maybe the reason why the Jews work to yank VNN all the time is because VNN plays this game too, with the average Joe, redirecting his impulses toward unapproved targets.**
You have a point here. Never mind FR's talk about "nuking ragheads," take a look at the way in which rabid neocons like Glazov and Schwartz are allowed to express themselves on "respectable" establishment outlets such as FrontPageMag and Weekly Standard. The terms which Comrade Sandalio uses to describe Serbs and Arabs makes most of our discussions of Jews and negroes seem mild in comparison.
I once had a discussion with the webmaster of a neocon-leaning site who proclaimed himself to be an "American nationalist" and who felt quite morally superior to me because I had "racist" attitudes towards Jews, negroes and mestizos. When I told him that the only difference between my attitude towards Jews and coloreds and his attitude towards Serbs, Arabs, and other enemies-of-the-week was that his hatreds were sanctioned by the media while mine were not. The BS on his part that followed on his part isn't worth repeating.
But this whole discussion may be a moot point. I'm not criticizing Linder and Co. because their views are too "extreme," I'm criticizing them for their childish and crude way of expressing their views. Dr. Pierce's views may have been more extreme than mine, but I admired his way of expressing them and think that he did a great deal for his cause, primarily by dispelling the media crafted image of the ignorant, frothing at the mouth "racist." Linder on the other hand, seems more than eager to play the Hollywood Nazi part scripted for him by his supposed enemies.**
Yeah, AY, those who tend to oppose the Authentic Right like to claim moral superiority, but upon closer observation one does find that the current leftist/neocon elite uses the same old methods as any other elite. Getting them to admit this, and getting others to see this, goes a long way.
I personally also prefer the Pierce (and now Kevin Strom) method of political discourse myself. In a similar sense, Jared Taylor and the New Century think-tank is an asset as well. The media gets a lot of mileage out of generating stereotypes that make those of the Old Right and the like appear uneducated and so on. In fact, I've long held that it is that particular stereotype that holds back Authentic Right causes the most. Perception is everything in politics. That's a great deal of what motivated me to obtain a graduate education--it puts the lie to that stereotype.
2002-12-04 04:09 | User Profile
**Dig it: Linder is a private citizen who started a rantsite in which he (and I assume some of his friends) could vent without censorial constraints, who happened to tap in to a gestalt bigger than anybody imagined, the free-floating rage of the culturally bound & gagged. This makes all sorts of people nervous for all sorts of reasons.
VNN is not serialized chapters of a political-manifesto-in-progress, it's essentially an enlarged version of what it originally started as: a funnel for Linder (and his readers and contributors) to pour in not just blind rage but their sarcasm and irreverence: all of the taboos imposed by the predatory elements of American society and ruthlessly enforced by their prey. If you want people to think the word 'nier', all you need do is violently prohibit some people from ever saying it....this, in effect, is the trigger for VNN. Forbidden speech already sounds 'extreme' and 'inflammatory' when merely uttered in low tones; defiantly shouting it is giving to give some people conniptions.
IR,
In light of the discussion on this thread, I'm getting the sense there are at least two groups that the American public falls into which the Authentic Right is trying to reach with its message.
On the one hand, you have the at least already partially-awakened and disaffected Whites, maybe the ones that are skeptical of philosophizing and the like--"earthy" type people who are angry at what America has become. This seems to be the group that most gravitates to VNN's style.
On the other hand, we have elements of the middle class who are potentially receptive to a truly alternative critique of the Establishment from the Right, from outside the "boundaries of permissible dissent." They know something's wrong in America, and they "want to believe" in what we have to offer, to swipe a line from Fox Mulder. But they have been immersed in the "propasphere" all their lives, and are programmed to react negatively to expressions of crude "racism" and the like. By acting out the Hollywood stereotypes, we artificially cut ourselves off from the very audience that we seek to get, and the very audience that is looking for us.
The thing is, somewhere along the line we've been presented with an either/or choice in terms of our marketing strategy. Package our message to the "mainstream middle class," etc., and the earthy disaffected begin wailing that we're sell outs. Package our message to the earthy, and we remain marginalized, artificially limiting our influence to a small pool, preaching to the choir, so to speak.
2002-12-04 04:24 | User Profile
This Aristophanes business sounds suspiciously like Horowitz comparing Annie Coulter to Petronius and Rabelais...sorry, whatever you think of Linder, he is no Swift and no Aristophanes
No, he's not, but his satirical invective towards taboo targets is a whooole nother kettle of fish than Ann Coulter's playing to the bleacher seats at Yahoo Stadium...and as such, is truer to the Swift tradition. C'mon, play fair, AY, a 'tradition' implies spirit more than exact syntax - and Coulter's "trespasses" were her ticket to the big time; what opprobrium she draws is always shouted down by her neocon Teddy-boy contingent. And at bottom, some people can't help fixating on Linder's OTT passages at the expense of some excellent writing he's done also. I'd written somewhere that Linder's style is "part bugler-playing-reveille, part prophet-in-the-wilderness & part standup-comic".....but a lot of people can't reconcile that pugnacious informality with his essential seriousness. You can't please the world, after all.
But here's a tip. The spintros are the slapstick; however, most of Linder's best and most serious writing is found in his (often essay-length) editorial replies in the letters sections. If Spintro Linder repulses you - always a possibility since he's trying to (not his smartest stylistic tic)- you're only getting half the picture. Pore thru the reader-mail archives and you may be surprised, maybe even pleasantly so.
**And the less is siad about the narcissistic screeching of the "Cat Lady" and Elizabeth Bennett (whose obsession with genitalia rivals Jamie Glazov's) the better. **
Wow- consigning The Cat Lady and that Bennett idiot to the same box is rough! All a matter of personal taste,I guess. But I think this might be one of VNN's greatest strengths: his egalitarianism towards contributors and even antagonists. No offense to you or Paul as I regard you both highly, but the Strom/Pierce approach, while scholarly, is not one to publicly endorse [or even countenance] an Alex Linder in the ranks; Linder is wise enough to understand that the next oddball who comes along might bring something revelatory to the table Linder himself might never have dreamed of on his own. I feel strongly that Linder considers Bennett a inch or two short of a foot-long frank, but he gives her her head. Frankly, he doesn't even require you explicitly bash Jews or blacks, or Cartney could never have reintroduced many of the writers he has. What he's looking for are contributions that make VNN a better and more worthwhile site for racialists to visit. He frequently chides the NA and NA-related sites for their narrow vision and unwillingness to fully exploit the media they have a foothold in, which a visit to these sites depressingly confirms. There is a place for a Kevin Strom on VNN, but there's no place for Linder on the NA page. There may be excellent reasons for this - including 'standards' - but Linder writes, and runs his site, like he realizes we're 20 games back with 30 to play, and that the only diversity worth a damn is the diversity of white voices and talent and experience. The NA site is always about one guy, and a long list of 'don't's.
2002-12-04 04:26 | User Profile
The implicit assumption in this strategy of catering to the lowest common denominator (the same strategy Hollywood and MTV use) is that the audience consists of fools who are incapable of understanding anything else. Do Linder et al have such a low opinion of the people they represent that they have to ape the very tactics that make the mass media so repellant?
Good point. In all honesty, our society's bell curve is skewed toward the LCD. The "average" point that defines our "masses" is not the same "average" of yesteryear--there has been a marked decline. There is an argument to be made that "we have to work with what we have." But I agree with you, AY, that this realistic/pessimistic assessment of the quality of our population shouldn't excuse blatant pandering to that population. The point, in the end, is to make America and Americans better, after all. A healthy civilization would seek to uplift the people, not contribute to their delinquency. And you know, I'm not sure we can compete with MTV and the like, since they seem quite capable of plumbing new depths each day.
The trouble is, all of these gems are submerged by Linder's own gratuitous juvenile antics.
That's a key point. I've often wished Linder would at least put some sort of disclaimer in a prominent place, linking to a page explaining his purpose for using the slurs, etc., something that would at least show the more intellectually inclined that there's more to the site, and more at stake, something that can help reassure readers that there is a "method to the madness." Sort of a "User's Guide to VNN," maybe something that highlights the Ludovici-level material.
2002-12-04 04:56 | User Profile
**The point, in the end, is to make America and Americans better, after all. **
Okay, but you can't force people to read Ludovici. However, a certain percentage of readers who come to VNN for a nasty Lindergiggle happen to stay long enough to check out those Ludovici excerpts....for most of them, it will be their first exposure to him and a large percentage of THAT number will require several readings, maybe over a period of months or years, before they become comfortable enough with the prose to become fully receptive to it. Same with not just the political writers/philosophers but the bellettrists like Saki and Ligotti and Aickman.
Now that's a long time to elapse for the hope that maybe, a few dozen people will develop a genuine interest in a great writer or thinker. Not much percentage in that overall proposition.
But you know what? THAT'S PROGRESS! That's the price of widening the circle, the price of 'making Americans better' - an investment of time and effort with no guarantee whatsoever that anyone is paying you the least attention. And you know something else? More often than not, you can find such things on VNN. Nobody is looking at a stopwatch. Nobody in Marketing is crunching the numbers. If they didn't like Ludovici, let's try again with Pound, or D'Annunzio! These are the kinds of opportunities for racialists to improve the breed because the overhead involved in running a website is small enough to afford any webmaster these opportunities to experiment and educate.
So he runs movie reviews and crude cartoons. It gets people in the tent! Long enough to wander over to something more edifying, hopefully. The GOP doesn't need a big tent but WE, as whites, do. VNN understands this better than any other racialist site out there.
(That said, where I agree with you, PalAv, is that the Cartney contributions should be in their own folder there, or at least made easier to find.)
2002-12-04 04:59 | User Profile
In the "Linder thread" somewhat related to this topic a while back, at [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=3288]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...t=ST&f=3&t=3288[/url] , I said:
And Linder's style helps separate the men from the boys in another area as well: it trains one to use one's brain in evaluating something rather than solely one's emotional reactions--emotional reactions which more often than not are also conditioned responses programmed by that Special Tribe that so permeates the agents of socialization in this society (media, academia, et al.). It is a mark of maturity, will, and disciplined intellect to be able to read Linder's provocative text for its content and truth value, rather than getting caught up merely in the irreverent and "outrageous" surface prose. In other words, he is encouraging his readers to exercise the same skill one needs to cut through the Jews' glittery surface distractions that gild their media products. Those who successfully exercise that skill are the kinds of independent-thinkers one would hope to reach with one's material. Interestingly, women have the hardest time managing this feat, and feminized men are the runners up in that competition.
I do realize that most people who are conditioned all their lives by the mainstream media can't control their reactions in this sense, and they may quickly judge VNN negatively upon seeing the harsh discourse there, and move on. At least if there were some sort of description like the kind I quote above, something that might promote some reflection in the potential reader and snap the reader out of their "autopilot" conventionalism, maybe then it would be better. It would at least give some overarching context to the coarse language. I guess this is what I mean by providing a "User's Guide to VNN."
Any merit in this idea, AY and IR? Is this a reasonable course of action that would allow both the intellectual and earthy formats to fluorish without doing damage to each other's efforts?
2002-12-04 05:14 | User Profile
There's only one thing that points us towards either the most pragmatic or the most self-destructive avenues and that is time.
VNN's been up 2-3 years, tops, operating on a shoestring and drawing some heavy fire just for existing: thus it's not blind adulation to say the course he's taken has been the right one, in that it's drawn enough attention to have developed an identity despite an official propaspherian policy of Ignore & Destroy. It's where he goes from here that's the question.
Part of me would be disappointed if VNN looks and reads exactly the same 3-4 years from now. On the other hand, a kinder, gentler Alex Linder won't mean squat if the ZOG stranglehold on America is even tighter than it is now.
2002-12-04 07:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Dec 3 2002, 22:56 **Okay, but you can't force people to read Ludovici. However, a certain percentage of readers who come to VNN for a nasty Lindergiggle happen to stay long enough to check out those Ludovici excerpts....for most of them, it will be their first exposure to him and a large percentage of THAT number will require several readings, maybe over a period of months or years, before they become comfortable enough with the prose to become fully receptive to it. Same with not just the political writers/philosophers but the bellettrists like Saki and Ligotti and Aickman.
Now that's a long time to elapse for the hope that maybe, a few dozen people will develop a genuine interest in a great writer or thinker. Not much percentage in that overall proposition.
But you know what? THAT'S PROGRESS! That's the price of widening the circle, the price of 'making Americans better' - an investment of time and effort with no guarantee whatsoever that anyone is paying you the least attention. **
Okay IR, I'll grant you this point. But given the assumption that somewhere out there there is some greater commonality that guys like myself and Linder are each working towards in their own way (which at this point I can't see), I've said this before and I'll say it here again, it's a one way street on the Linder side of the aisle. We are to accept their method all the while they incessantly cast aspersions toward us and our manner of doing things. How many times must we read of Buchanan, Sobran, PC Roberts and Francis being soft and sell-outs over their "refusal to name the Jew" and other such nonsense? What about the folks like myself who started reading VDARE and Francis and began to delve further into their philosophies and became awakened to taboo subject matters and writers like MacDonald. For example, I never would have given Duke a fair hearing until I began asking myself deeper questions after reading Francis and Sobran for a period of time.
So like I said, what you posted certainly makes sense, but in this particular dynamic only one side is expected to be flexible and that doesn't play with me. Indeed, it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
2002-12-04 08:27 | User Profile
How many times must we read of Buchanan, Sobran, PC Roberts and Francis being soft and sell-outs over their "refusal to name the Jew" and other such nonsense? What about the folks like myself who started reading VDARE and Francis and began to delve further into their philosophies and became awakened to taboo subject matters and writers like MacDonald. For example, I never would have given Duke a fair hearing until I began asking myself deeper questions after reading Francis and Sobran for a period of time.
Agreed, TD. In the other thread re: Linder, I quoted a letter to VNN from a college student who made much the same point as you have above. I, for one, hope that such sniping as you describe can be minimized. I realize that there is a value in ensuring that there is a true opposition to the Left, and that means exposing and condemning the "false Right" like RimJob and Company, but I fear that sometimes that impulse toward "defending our ideological borders" on the Right leads to false denunciations of allies.
I think a lot of people come to paleoconservative and nationalist politics through the path you mention above. I didn't just pop out of the womb with the views I have now, either. There was once a time I was a "standard conservative" who thought mostly about tax cuts and cutting welfare programs and the like. I wasn't aware there were other issues that weren't being commonly talked about. I started off with Barry Goldwater's book and Rush Limbaugh and worked my way up from there. I'm glad I know more about what's going on than just those "mainstream" sources I just listed, but it was good they were there for me as stepping stones. :lol:
The good thing is that if one studies enough, and really researches what conservatism is enough, one could even read FrontPage Magazine and eventually come around to our side. All it takes is for one to finally notice that there are places that certain (neo)"conservatives" aren't living up to conservatism--one can see the smuggled-in presuppositions of the Left. Then they're done for. An example: I think it was Robert Locke over there in Horowitzland who put out a conservative reading list. He included Wilmot Robertson's The Dispossessed Majority among the titles. That text is a "racialist" classic. It's a well-done, enlightening text...it's on my shelf. Needless to say, I was surprised to see it listed there. Pleased, but surprised.
2002-12-04 12:30 | User Profile
Gentlemen:
How folks come to enlighten themselves can take many different ways and paths. Even when the vision of the "Big Picture" is understood and the enemy is exposed, the dilemma always exists what can be done to restore control over our own circumstance. Honest reflection will ultimately conclude that the beast must be slain. The mayority will always reject that conclusion and fight against those who engage in the real struggle.
If there can't be agreement that the Federal Reserve is a root cause of enslavement, how can anyone reasonably expect the public to accept the list of enemies?
By now, most should know where I stand. But it is also time for sincere Americans to face reality that meaningful change cannot happen under the current conditions. All that remains is resistence with the understanding that the consequences will not be pleasant.
The future is set and won't restore sanity, because the public are willing slaves. Those who have the courage to face this conclusion will be able to make peace with themselves and prepare for the worst.
SARTRE :ph34r:
2002-12-04 22:12 | User Profile
They love to see frothing at the mouth types like Linder and bizarre cults like the World Church of the Creator because it reinforces their neat little picture of the world. What they hate to see is a PhD physicist (Pierce) or a quasi-successful political leader (Duke) who in every way contradicts the stereotype of the frothing-at-the-mouth beast. And believe it or not, what they hate even more are far more "moderate" nationalists such as the Buchananites who actually broke through into the quasi-mainstream. The ADL website in the mid 90's devoted more space to Buchanan than to Pierce...that ought to say something.
That's an important indicator, AY. I recall in the end days of the Sam Francis Forum how Leo was gloating the place was being shut down because he hoped to prevent an alliance or re-joining between "racialists" and conservatism (I'm paraphrasing from memory). I know I should take that observation with a grain of salt considering the source, but something about that particular post of Leo's stood out from the rest of his bilge.
I think Leo really was worried about the potential inherent in such an alliance. I figure if the people that Leo represents don't want conservatism to return to its pre-WW2, "illiberal" roots, then that should be something we should work toward as a goal. In fact, it was that particular post of Leo's that motivated me to take more of an interest in online forums than I previously had, so Leo is somewhat responsible for my participation at OD. With every post here, I hope to make him sweat.
2002-12-04 23:38 | User Profile
I think there may be some jealousy here of Mr. Linder. Nobody else thought up Linder's strategy but Linder himself. I think the guy IZ a genius. If you read his responses to his letters you see that he has a very deep understanding of human nature while at the same time being modest enough to be willing to learn more.
ITZ funny how many people are so certain that Linder's strategy is wrong, while Paleo-consevatism/WN have been miserable failures for decades now.
BTW, I will match my cultural sensibilities against anyone. I love Bach, Goethe, Shakespeare and all the rest of the high-brow stuff and I am not the least put off by Linder's rudeness and vulgarity. :)
2002-12-05 00:00 | User Profile
Originally posted by Javelin@Dec 4 2002, 17:38 **I think there may be some jealousy here of Mr. Linder. **
Give me a break, Javelin. No psychoanalysis is required here. Believe it or not, there are some of us who are secure enough in our own persons and beliefs and are just offended by crude language and base humor. You know, those worthless Christians and other defenders of traditional, Western Christendom's morality and code of ethics.
2002-12-05 00:31 | User Profile
One problem with bringing up "Leo", besides allowing a yarmulked gremlin to define what is and isn't beyond the pale, is that I remember him gleefully referring to people like Anti-Yuppie and Frederick William as "toothless losers", "sister-climbing rednecks", etc. It's not as if he was patiently waiting for someone to make horrific spelling and punctuation errors before pouncing; he'd character-assassinate some of our most reasoned voices! Sad to say, PalAv, if he were here, he'd respond to your soberest posts with some kind of tractor-pull reference, and a reminder to floss.
It's not that the "Leos" of this world encourage the Linders; it's that Linder understands that, to Leo and his ilk, there is no difference between an Alex Linder, a Kevin MacDonald or a Joe Sobran. (Christ, lookit how low the threshold of "anti-Semitism" is, folks!) Let me say this again so nobody can possibly misunderstand: in propasphere-America, the man who rejects Linder as too extreme, preferring the more restrained and responsible suit-and-tie approach of Pierce and Duke ....is still a murderous Nazi-worshipping anti-Semite!
And as far as this laughable line of thought that Jews fear a Sam Francis but actually grow more powerful from the online presence of a VNN, that one might require a breathalyzer. (If Francis is such a fearless defender of liberty, why did he cave in to pressure to cancel a speaking engagement at a David Irving event? In fact, why aren't I writing this at SFOF?)
The sad/funny part is, some of the writers who cling to Jewish-media notions of 'decency' and 'propriety' have already been exiled to, basically, Internet columns - ie, they have nothing to protect! I guess old taboos die hard. And lumping Joe Sobran with Francis is unfair to both men...remember that, a decade before Linder, it was Joe who wore the devil horns for going beyond the pale. About the only true commonality between Francis and Sobran is their ever-increasing marginalization by Jewish media. Observe the tenets of good taste and play by the rules and all you're doing is making it easier for them to gag you.
2002-12-05 01:03 | User Profile
IR,
Yeah, agreed, there's no moral difference these days between the guy who thinks maybe only 5,999,999 instead of 6,000,000 Jews died in the big WWII and Mengele with his rusty scalpel. If you're gonna get a bad name no matter what why not go ahead and answer to it?
However, don't you think some "in-yer-face, Jew!" tactics are counterproductive? Sure, it may be a lot of fun to watch Jews foam at the mouth by marching with swastikas and giving the Roman salute, but does it really accomplish anything?
Now, I'm not comparing Linder directly to that stuff, but there does seem to be a lot of Nazi regalia over there. I just think that symbols and methods that worked in a bygone era may not serve us today, even if the root problems are similar.
2002-12-05 01:15 | User Profile
One problem with bringing up "Leo", besides allowing a yarmulked gremlin to define what is and isn't beyond the pale, is that I remember him gleefully referring to people like Anti-Yuppie and Frederick William as "toothless losers", "sister-climbing rednecks", etc. It's not as if he was patiently waiting for someone to make horrific spelling and punctuation errors before pouncing; he'd character-assassinate some of our most reasoned voices! Sad to say, PalAv, if he were here, he'd respond to your soberest posts with some kind of tractor-pull reference, and a reminder to floss.
IR,
The situation you describe is what I've seen too. Of course, someone like Leo isn't going to be convinced, but I thought that Leo's behavior that you describe is what helps us and works to our advantage. Consider that when AY and FW I post reasoned commentary, and then Leo jumps all over it calling it those names, Leo ends up looking hysterical and wrong. I'm looking at this from a lurker's perspective. [All writing is strategic, and I'm playing to the lurkers on this board. We're all on stage here, the audience is watching us, and we'd better give a good performance.] To a reasonable lurker, it's clear that AY is bright and has the facts and knows how to use them. When Leo comes into the picture attacking AY, the lurker sees that Leo's claims about AY are groundless. They can compare AY's text with Leo's right in front of them, and conclude that AY is right. Leo hurts his own cause. That contrast helps us big time. Now, if it were some of Linder's spintros, the contrast between the two might not be so great, and some might falsely conclude Leo has some points.
2002-12-05 01:38 | User Profile
MST, I think all of us are in this together, like it or not.
I notice Jews never do this kind of thing. You never saw Michael Lerner devote column inches to attacking Kahane. When Don Feder or Jamie Glazov attack 'liberals' for hogging the road they somehow fail to note who's typically driving the car; it's always "Democrats" or "militant blacks" or "Daschle" or "Hillary". (Interesting how the Jews now diasporing over to the GOP have managed to codify all Liberal Evil down to a handful of leftist goys, innit?) They don't attack each other save on sterile procedural disagreements is what I'm saying.
To me, Linder's Achilles heel is not his Jew-baiting but his snarling impatience with his own. He bashes Christianity nonstop and I think that's a serious mistake (not because he's wrong but because you don't help a child by violently snatching away its bottle'n'blankie: it's antagonizing a core constituency at a time when we can't afford to.)
On the other hand, none of the things he attacks has worked, and have earned at least a little skepticism. There are a helluva lot more Self Hating Gentiles in this world than there are Self Hating Jews, and right now a little shock treatment is probably necessary; nobody's going to convert all of em but it's important that the shabbas goys wax lyrically over their "shared Judeo Christian traditions" because nothing shakes a sleeper to full consciousness than his own words boomeranging back at him with the full force of their simplemindedness.
In the final analysis VNN has a broader spectrum of racialist approaches than the NA or Duke or VDARE (who are tirelessly fighting for racialism while shaking in their boots at saying 'racialism'.) This will, in the long run, help these other sites - and make no mistake, we will need a broad coalition of 'types' to get anywhere (and if Alex Linder can't sublimate his muse to that reality then his sell-by date will have expired). However, that day is not yet here.
For this particular, creep-before-you-walk moment in time, the price of being able to criticize Jews in the public square is paid by the demonized. Pierce, Sobran, Duke and - like it or lump it - Linder, are the Men They Love To Hate - but their mere existence adds a little extra play in the leash around our necks.
It behooves us to take advantage of any extra wiggle room we can get. By pushing harder.
2002-12-05 01:50 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Dec 4 2002, 19:38 He bashes Christianity nonstop and I think that's a serious mistake (not because he's wrong but because you don't help a child by violently snatching away its bottle'n'blankie: it's antagonizing a core constituency at a time when we can't afford to.)
That was an interesting analogy: snatching away his 'bottle n blankie'
The thing is, Christians (me) are very angry at what's going on in this country. We agree with you on many issues (the Jewish issues, I'm neither Alex Linder nor David Horowitz - I oppose anyone who opposes me, Jewish Arab or Martian)
Christians know what the Linders of the world think of them. He couldn't fool us even if he wanted to, and that's why the bulk of our citizenry prefers to dismiss him and focus on Pat, Sobran, or (gasp!) the traditional GOP.
-J
2002-12-05 01:50 | User Profile
**To a reasonable lurker, it's clear that AY is bright and has the facts and knows how to use them. When Leo comes into the picture attacking AY, the lurker sees that Leo's claims about AY are groundless. They can compare AY's text with Leo's right in front of them, and conclude that AY is right. Leo hurts his own cause. **
Ahhhh...au contraire, my friend. One thing lurkers and regulars alike understand is terms like "Nazi", "hater" and especially "anti-Semite" carry severe real-life penalties. Let's face it - nobody, with the rectum-nuzzling exception of a Geo Will or a Cal Thomas, really holds Jews as sacrosanct as they pretend to do to avoid being called those things. A lurker - who, by his very nature, is going to be the cautious, look-before-you-leap type, is going to see Leo do the Anti-Nazi Funky Chicken on somebody like AY and think: Jeez! It don't take much, do it? Then, God help us, he'll go lurk at the FR or NewsMax forums and see the power of a thousand Leos and start seeing unemployment benefits in his future, and maybe a camera crew at his front door asking him if he teaches his racism to his children (with all his neighbors watching) and decide, This can only buy me trouble. *This just isn't worth it. ***
2002-12-05 02:10 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Dec 4 2002, 21:50 > To a reasonable lurker, it's clear that AY is bright and has the facts and knows how to use them. When Leo comes into the picture attacking AY, the lurker sees that Leo's claims about AY are groundless. They can compare AY's text with Leo's right in front of them, and conclude that AY is right. Leo hurts his own cause. **
Ahhhh...au contraire, my friend. One thing lurkers and regulars alike understand is terms like "Nazi", "hater" and especially "anti-Semite" carry severe real-life penalties. Let's face it - nobody, with the rectum-nuzzling exception of a Geo Will or a Cal Thomas, really holds Jews as sacrosanct as they pretend to do to avoid being called those things. A lurker - who, by his very nature, is going to be the cautious, look-before-you-leap type, is going to see Leo do the Anti-Nazi Funky Chicken on somebody like AY and think: Jeez! It don't take much, do it? Then, God help us, he'll go lurk at the FR or NewsMax forums and see the power of a thousand Leos and start seeing unemployment benefits in his future, and maybe a camera crew at his front door asking him if he teaches his racism to his children (with all his neighbors watching) and decide, This can only buy me trouble. This just isn't worth it. ****
:lol: Okay, that's a plausible reaction, too. Damned if you do, damned if you don't?