← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 6133 | Posts: 16 | Started: 2003-04-13
2003-04-13 04:20 | User Profile
If nothing else, these intramural staredowns always generate lots of comments. Gee, I almost feel like Jesse Ventura up in the booth, broadcasting the XFL title game!
Victor Gerhard-Sam Francis Exchanges
by Gerhard & Francis
Loaded: 4/12/2003
(Ed. Note: this is raw email, so don't hold anybody overly responsible for spelling mistakes, etc.)
Here is correspondence with Sammy. I wonââ¬â¢t put in comments, cause you donââ¬â¢t need them, but note how he first argues that he canââ¬â¢t get published, then next he doesnââ¬â¢t agree with me about Jews ââ¬â which makes the first point moot, all the while ignoring the damning questions, like why he criticizes Hispanics so fiercely, but never Jews. Really, the guy is a nut. Either that or they have some dirt on him, or he is just a scared sh*t, I donââ¬â¢t know. I could have ripped him a new asshole because he was 1) hysterical, and 2) illogical, but I let him off easy. Maybe someday he will do something good, I don't know. He can't write a paragraph without 3 contradictions and one twisting of his opponent's argument. I'd love to debate him and drive him into the dirt.
Vic G
[Me to Francis, responding to Moran column]
**Anti-Semitism is saying or doing anything a Jew does not like; whether the statement was true, or the act perfectly justified. That is the real definition. How can you even pretend otherwise when Jews call someone who defends Arabs (Semites) against Jewish tyranny an 'anti-Semite'?
It's great that you are pecking around the edges of the problem. I'm just not sure what more proof you need to see that Jews are directing American foreign policy; that Culture of Critique and its mind-boggling account of facts is completely true; that to rail against blacks and hispanics without mentioning Jews is like complaining about symptoms but not the disease.
Maybe this sounds cruel and racist; and yet it is true isn't it? Personally, I've read enough of your writings, heard you speak enough times, and even talked to you on occasion, so that I am convinced you recognize the Jewish problem. It would be an immense help if you could now take off the gloves and let the Jews have it. They have it coming. They are the true enemy of Middle Americans. "Oil" is not the justification for this war but a laughably transparent Jewish hedge, nor are the Christian fundamentalists to blame; if they were not supporting Israel we would barely, as before 9/11, realize they existed.
My friends are going to jail for speaking their minds; every day another one is arrested or visited by the FBI, or raided by the Terrorism Task Force. Now is the time, name the Jew, put THEM on the defensive for once. Otherwise, Middle America is doomed; its sons' dying in Central Asia, its jobs moving out of the US, its population increasingly non-White and hostile. We need you to act now; a few months from now may be too late.
Your columns could make an immense difference at this crucial moment. We are watching history, and if the Jews triumph here there may be no stopping them, ever. Goodbye White race.
Vic Gerhard
Wilmington, N.C.
[Francis back to me]
**I just wrote a column on Moran in which I was fairly explicit about this matter. I have another today that is also pretty explicit about the role of neo-cons (not all Jews) in getting us into the war. What more do you want? Peter Brimelow at Vdare told me the first column probably would not be published by any newspaper in this country (we'll see; my columnn last year supporting what Billy Graham said to Nixon was not published by my three best outlets), and without my authority or knowledge he changed a key line that altered my meaning. You simply cannot go much further than I have already gone and expect to be published at all in anythng like mainstream media, and anyway, aside from the current war, I think there are other problems besides the Jewish role in stirring up blacks and pushing immigration. Both blacks and hispanics have now acquired their own racial consciousness and are not necessarily under Jewish control. **
[Me back to Sammy]
**I agree, you possibly could not go further and expect to be published mainstream, as of today. This is a reasonable argument for using this tactic. I feel (perhaps incorrectly but I doubt it) that the time is past for this tactic. If you did publish a column going further, USA Today would not print it, but plenty of people would read it on the ever growing alternative White media (overthrow.com, antiwar.com, Vanguard News Network, Stormfront, and many more), and it just may put the bar lower for the next guy who dares. As things look today, your tactic, which you have followed for the 15 years I have been reading you, has gotten a good but watered-down message to Middle America, but our situation is FAR worse than 15 years ago.
Much of Middle America is flying an American flag and 'supporting the troops;' reasonable if you never had another way of thinking offered to you. Your columns are scathing at the beginning and middle, but never offer a realistic answer at the end because you do not name the Jews as the prime movers in the destruction of Middle America. How can someone organize against an amorphous 'Elite'? You rarely name names, except as examples. You talk of the Frankfurt School and other groups, never saying they are almost 100% Jewish and Jewish-funded and based on Jewish tactics and ideals.
You told me you were reading 'The Culture of Critique.' How anyone can read that book and not immediately come to important conclusions based on the Jewish role in the Boasian School, the Left, the Psychoanalytic movement, the Frankfurt School, critique of gentile cultural, immigration policy and more, I do not know. Jewish power is the most important and relevant fact in America today. Yet you do not acknowledge that power. That is a derelection of duty; you are hated by the left and neo-cons regardless of what you do - but do you expect the White right, your true home, to appreciate your half-measures? You are literally a man without a nation.
Precisely how bad must the situation get before you tell the whole truth? Now, how would you have answered that question 2 years ago? Two years ago you would have agreed to open fire if the Government ever did something as tyrannical and insane as the Patriot Act(s), the mass arrests, threats of government torture, Guantanamo detention, the B-52 strikes, the complete control of the Executive Branch by Jews, if not Israeli Jews, hideous airport searches, the Department of Homeland Security, phone taps, and spies controlled by Israel. All on top of a war against 1.1 Billion Muslims that we can never win.
You are being disingenuous when you say you were tough on the Moran critics; not all neo-cons are Jews; and blacks and hispanics are not under Jewish control. You were tough on Moran by the relatively tepid standards of the paleo-cons a la the Rockford institute. Not all neo-cons are Jews, but those that are not Jewish know the score and never deviate from the editorial line DEVISED wholly by Jews. Blacks and hispanics may have thrown off a bit of the Jewish yoke, but the Jewish strategy and mindset lives on and they would have little power to intimidate Whites without Jewish judges, lawyers, financing and media pressure. You know this. As far as Brimelow, he needs a kick in the ass also.
What is it you want? To be published mainstream? To be rich? To be on TV? These I can not help you with. But if you want to save Whites and their culture, get off the fence and attack the enemy. At this point, you are actually furnishing disinformation, confusing the very public who soon will be looking for answers as the situation in their country grows worse. And hey, Sobran gets published. I gave him a thousand dollars of my money because of his honest stance; a thousand dollars I had to make in payments because I'm his poorest charter subscriber.
What more can I expect of you? I want you to finally and forever cast off the chains of Jewish fear, Jewish money, and Jewish influence. I want you to write columns that will stir the public to rise up and change this nation. Join those on the radical right who are not afraid to tell the whole truth. I am not asking you to do ANYTHING I have not done. I lost my job as an Attorney, I have friends going to jail on made up charges, I've had my phone tapped, I get the super search at every airport, but I am a FREE MAN! I also write columns - they don't get published mainstream, but thousands of people read them. You could do a hundred times better.
I realize this is a lot to ask, but screw the money and respectability. What do I want? White Power!
Victor J. Gerhard, Esq.
Wilmington, NC
[Sammy back to me]
*Well, I'm sorry I'm such a disappointment to you. The fact is that I have read the Culture of Critique, as well as the other two volumes, know MacDInald personally, and agree with much though not all of what he says. My entore body of writings over the last 20-25 years is an explanation of how I sidagree and and have a somewhat dofferent view of the world than what is frankly a monomanical obsession with an omnipotent Jew. There are reasons why neo-conservatism exists other than Jewish power, and these should be obvious to any one actually involved in politics. I was a witness to many of them. Just one, for example, is the greed and amition and shalloweness of many orthodox non-Jewish conservatives fro the "respectability" they thought Jews could give them. You and critics like you always assume that because others don't say what you demand they say, they must be afraid to say it. The fact is, as I just told you, I have just written two columns that will probably harm me more than they help me, so it is not fear on my part. Can you even imagine that maybe I don't agree with your view of the Jews, that the Jews and the Jews alone are solely responsible for everthing bad that has happened and is going on? I really don't think you can. Moreover, as I was trying to tell you indirectly, I depend on outlets like Vdrae and Rockford; if they don't publish me, I don't get piublished, and they would not publish me if I write what you want me to write (which I do not agree with anyway). Sobran does not get published outside of his own newsletter and maybe the Wanderer. The American Cisnervatuve won't publish him. Chronicles won't publish him. His syndicate dropped him. So don't tell me about things I know about more than you. It's fine to piublish on sites like VNN., but no one -- non one --reads them or takes them seriously outside a handful of people. Sure I'd like to be rich, but do you imagine I thought I would ever get rich writing what I write? I really just don't know how to explain to people like you what the real world is like, because the truth is -- take it form someone who went through graduate school, worked in a think tank, in the US Senate, and at a nationally distrubuted newspaper for 9 years -- you and your pals do not have a fcking clue.
[Me to Sammy]
**Oooookay....now why will the columns harm you, why won't Vdare and Rockford publish such a column, why can't Sobran get published? Oh, and what is this war stuff on the T.V.? Come on, I wasn't rude to you, nor did I say Jews were every single problem, but that they are far, far more of the problem than recognized by your columns. (By the way, if non-Jewish neo-conservatives want the 'respectablity' they feel Jews can give them, that is not ANOTHER reason neo-cons exist, but rather the very one I stated - Jewish Power.) I don't have a CLUE? You say you agree with most of MacDonald, then when I base my arguments on him, I don't have a clue? Tell me what part of MacDonald you agree with, can you buck up and do that? Agreeing with even one chapter would put in serious question the honesty of your writing, would it not; as that agreement is never acknowledged by you in your writings. And tell me what you disagree with. I get the managerial elite argument, I've read and re-read what you have written over the years, but your very email here implies you won't get published for criticizing Jews as an ethnic group, though you HAVE criticized black's and hispanic's as ethnic groups, and then attacks me with an anger I did nothing to merit.
You are in the same bag as Jared Taylor, who in person admitted he chose not to attack Jews because he had enough of a problem attacking blacks, et al. You fit right in at American Renaissance, I'd say. For all your 'think tank' work, did you ever stand on a street with demonstrators as Jews rained bricks down on you for daring to speak out against them, as the police turned their heads? You write about Middle America, I am Middle America. I'm not sure precisely what sentence got you riled. I'd wish you'd tell me so I can use it again. Hey, if people read this exchange, who will they think has a clue, you or me? I'll wager on me.
Plus, the idea that 'no one' takes VNN seriously is ridiculous. The ever-growing numbers of people that do take it seriously are true activists, each worth 100 brandy-sniffing Chronicle's readers. People that will put their financial and physical well being on the line for the ideals you somewhat endorse. Another point, what is the ENTIRE Muslim world yelling about if not many of the same beliefs about Jews showcased on VNN? Add in much of Europe and Asia and South America, and much of the US population of blacks and hispanics, and, well, that's not really 'a handful of people' is it?
I truly do respect you and your writing had a great effect on my life. Actually, you brought me a long way to the beliefs I have. Yet you, Dr. Frankenstein, feel I don't have a clue. What is that line about the guilty man fleeing where no one pursues? Sorry, should know it, just too Middle American.
Your entire body of work does little to counter an anti-Jewish explanation of American Politics. I believe almost all you have written; yet it contradicts most of MacDonald not at all. Your writings try to explain why and how this managerial elite became so alienated and hostile to traditional America. It partially explains the alienation, but does little to explain the hostility, the outright hatred, that these elites have for people who are basically members of their family. Only a non-White group could have such hatred for Whites, and such an obsession with their destruction. Only by understanding that the most influential part of the managerial elite is Jewish can one finally understand this contradiction in your work.
Anyway, have to get back to the T.V. and see which of my friends Michael Chertoff has arrested, listen to Alan Dershowitz talk about torturing them, and hear Ari Fleisher's take on the whole thing, per Richard Pearle. One last thing; you do realize that Jews as an ethnic group are 3% of the American population? A smaller percentage than Austrian Americans? That fact has made it to you right? But since they are not omnipotent, it's just a minor fact of American politics; voila, the exception proves the rule. Well, as for our discussion, res ipsa loquitur, as we clueless say.
Vic Gerhard
Counsel, White Revolution
[Sammy to me]
**I had thought that you, unlike several of the others who like to rant about my "cowardice," "treachery," "phil-Semitism," etc., had a little more sense, but appraently I was misguided. Let me try to explain once more in some detail what I am trying to tell you.
What you said in your last communication was insulting because it at least indirectly and perhaps directly questioned my integrity, acusing me of cowardice or ignorance or dishonesty or greed or ambition as the only plausible reaons I do not write what you want me to write as you want it written. I have to say that I have received many criticisms as a columnist but this -- from the professional (and usualy anonymous) anti-Semites -- takes the cake. No one else presumes ot tell a writer what to write or how to write, even as they insult his character and intelligence -- not religious nuts, not racial nuts, not libertarian nuts -- except maybe the Jews themselves. But leave all that aside.
Vdare, Rockford, etc won't publish openly anti-Semitic pieces because (a) they like most gentiles are irrationally afraid of Jewish power and (B) they also have rational concerns over Jewish power. Both have Jewish "friends" who give them money, publicity, support, etc. and they are afraid -- I believe not entirely withgoiut cause but in an exaggerated way -- of losing that. Also, like most peopole they would like to do something else besides attack Jews and sometimes there are Jews with whim they need to work in order th do those things. (Rockford just held a conference in the Middle East on a prospects for peace there; it wasnlt my idea and I don't see the point, except that some donors (non-Jewish ) gave them money to do it.) Therefore, they are veyr careful about antaginizing Jewish supporters. As you may know, they were virtually destroyed in the late 1980s by neo-con defunding because of positive remarks they made about Gore Vidal and because of their opposition to immigration. Nevertheless, they have consistently published pieces critical of Zionism, including several of my recent columns on the Iraq war and Jewish neo-con- Israeli power, and of foreign entanglements, perpetual wars, etc. Chronicles also published a review of MacDonald by Paul Gottfried which I strongly dsagree with but they allowed MacDonald to write a long response, more than the American Conservative allowed. I do not control either RI or Vdare and foten disagree withbhiw they are run, but essentially they do not attack the Jews because they are more interested in other problems.
Unless you really do believe that Jews are the causes of all problems, which you deny, you have to admit there are other problems. You ask what I disagree with in MacDonald. I can't really comment on the general evolutionary theory since I'm not an expert, but I have no problem with it. Nor do I have a problem with his characterization of Jews in general, though some people tell me it's less true of some Jewish groups (Sephardic) than others (Ashkenazic) or at some periods of history than at others. What I do not agree with Kevin on is that while he's right about the way Jews are, that doesn't mean they are always successful. They may have pushed open borders as a means of underminig what they saw as a hostile hist society, but that doesn't mean their efforts were the reason we have open borders opr that other groups didn't wnat open borders for their own reasons. I dealt with immigration partly when I was in the Senate and frankly the role of the Jews was not at all apparent, as it was in foreign policy, and many social issues. The main enemies of immigration control on the right are (1) libertarians and (2) Catholics; the same was true at the Wash. Times, and I knew Jews who were opposed to more immigration at both places.Libertarianism tends to be Jewish-led, but it exists as an idnependent force in its own right amoing gentiles. I recall in 1995 or 95 Bill Gates visited Sen. Alan Simpson to lobby him on H1-B visas; Simpson caved. Neither is Jewish and neither did what he did becaise of Jewish power or influence but because of business and political interests. Business interests have been the main reason we have immigrant workers pushing out American workers in meat packing, textiles, poultry processing, etc. The Jews may serve as lawyers or lobbyists for these groups but Jewish groups per se have had little to do with immigration policy in recent years.
I don't deny that Jews have power -- certainly in the media and cultural centers generally and in politics through funding, staffing etc. But Jews are not the ruling class in this country (at least not yet). As in many other societies they form a subelite that provides services for the ruling class (tax collecting in Poland, e.g.), but I think they have little interest in becoming theactual ruling class because they have no interest in that as loing as their interests are secured.
Your line about standing on street corners getting attacked by Jews is frankly childish. No I didn't. I just lost my job and my career for what I wrote about race (and I can tell you Jews appear to have had something to do with that and have certainly used it against me ever since). I'll bet Kevin MacDOnald never did either. I have a clue for you: Standing on street corners and yelling anti-Semitic slogans isn't a very effectuve way to challeneg much of anything. Hyde Park is full of characters like that. What I have tried to do -- explicitly at the Times and later as well -- has been to make explicit and serious discussion of race respectable. That means picking your shots and not saying everything you'd like to say because you know it will simply baffle or alarm many readers, but it does mean that you can tell many, many people a lot fo things they didn't know or hadn't thought about. I think I was beginning to succeed when I was fired, and that may have been the real reason I was fired. Last summer when the National Alliance had its march on the Israeli Embassy I asked a friend who was planning to attend why and what good it would do? I told him all you will accomplish is give the Post the chance to portray all of you as a bunch of Nazi goons at a time when some opinion sectors were startiung to turn on Israel. Thatls exactly what happened -- pictures of swastika flags, jack boots, etc. that understandably frighten and alienate most Americans and allow the Jews to say, "See, we told you what all those critics of Israel were like!" The idea that people like Linder and VNN accomplish much of anything outside of mutual masturbation is ludcrous. Frankly, I had never heard of Linder until he started attacking me and some people told me about it. With all due respect, I had never heard of your column until you told me you write one.
Finally, I have been gratified (one of the few gratifictaions I ever get in my profession) by being told by doxens of yuong people that I had taught them something they would not have known otherwise. No one but you and your friends have ver denounced me for being a hypocrite, a coward, a liar, a traitor, etc. I would have thiught that you would have epxressed some appreciation for what I have done, but the fact the you don't and can find only the most hateful things to say about me tells me all I need to know. As I told one of your colleagues recently, from now on I can only regard the whole bunch of you as my enemies and as enemies of the cause for which I am working.
[Me to Sammy, biting my tongue]
**I have though about this a lot, and there is much more that could be said, but I don't think we are going to agree no matter what is said.
I do have to say that if your foremost cause is the continuation of the White Race, then there is no possible way we can be enemies as you described.
Though it sounds fawning, no one has structured my political awareness like you in your writings. I learned more reading your Chronicles columns, especially Revolution from the Middle, than in four years of undergraduate study.
Yours,
Vic Gerhard**
2003-04-14 16:43 | User Profile
Buchanan has more influence than Linder but influence to do what? Our side has lost every battle for a good 50+ years. I don't see Buchanan making the slightest dent in the fortunes of the Jews.
It might be time for a change. Let's see somebody of high prominance like Buchanan openly, unapoligetically and scathingly name the Jew. Let's see what would happen just as an experiment. If it failed, well Buchanan is a very wealthy man who could just buy a house in the country and go fishing every day. :sm:
2003-04-15 00:40 | User Profile
**Some of the greatest minds on the Right, including those who by today's standards are racialist, certainly never tried to reduce all of history and politics to "the Jewish question" or even to race. It's rather ironic that the VNN crowd invoke as heroes and precursors people who, if they were around today, would also be called cowards by VNN for not dwelling on Jews 24x7. **
I don't think you can reasonably presume this. The scientific understanding of Judaism is far more advanced than it was 5 or 10 years ago, though MacDonald's work is not the ultimate word on Judaism.
2003-04-15 01:53 | User Profile
Alex needs to realize that we're not living in 1925 Germany with millions of radicalized WWI Veterans and the twin demons of Bolshevism and hyper-inflation--both wrought by Jewry--fresh in the public consciousness.
Any Traditionalist Revolution today must come in an American form and with an American sensibility or it will not come at all. In the meantime, Alex would serve the cause best by helping to expunge the utterly counter-productive Hollywood freaks and fetishists...95% of whom are either mentally ill or on the ADL/Fed payroll. <_<
2003-04-29 01:57 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Apr 13 2003, 20:04 ** > **published mainstream, as of today. This is a reasonable argument for using this tactic. I feel (perhaps incorrectly but I doubt it) that the time is past for this tactic. If you did publish a column going further, USA Today would not print it, but plenty of people would read it on the ever growing alternative White media (overthrow.com, antiwar.com, Vanguard News Network, Stormfront, and many more), and it just may put the bar lower for the next guy who dares. As things look today, your tactic, which you have followed for the 15 years I have been reading you, has gotten a good but watered-down message to Middle America, but our situation is FAR worse than 15 years ago. **
For all of their sniping back and forth, the Gerhard-Francis disagreement really boils down to the above issue.
The question is whether it is important to have somebody in the mainstream presenting a (strongly watered down) version of our worldview, or whether the cause would be better served by having the writers in question say exactly what they believe at the cost of remaining completely marginal. I strongly believe that the former is an important priority, that one Buchanan has done more to educate people about third world immigration and the Israeli lobby than a thousand Linders ever could.
If one writes to entertain the converted and preach to the choir, then obviously the way Gerhard advocates is the path to take. If on the other hand the goal is to reach people who are neutral, unconvinced, or fence-sitters, then it is of the utmost importance to have the message (no matter how watered down) out in officially sanctioned "respectable" venues.
It strikes me that the VNN mindset is the joy of being a big fish in a very small pond of people who already share their worldview 100% rather than convincing others that the worldview is a sensible one.
The secondary issue, of course, is whether all paleoconservatives and "mild" racialists secretly share the VNN worldview and chose not to articulate it out of fear. The implication is that secretly Joe Sobran, Sam Francis, and Jared Taylor would like to bray "kill the kkes and nggers" but can't. That seems rather presumptuous, maybe they don't really think that way and genuinely believe that there is more of a systemic problem in the Occident than just Jews and coloreds.
Some of the greatest minds on the Right, including those who by today's standards are racialist, certainly never tried to reduce all of history and politics to "the Jewish question" or even to race. It's rather ironic that the VNN crowd invoke as heroes and precursors people who, if they were around today, would also be called cowards by VNN for not dwelling on Jews 24x7.
The Linderites love to quote Nietzsche and Mencken, both of whom have said as many philosemitic things as things critical of Jews, and both of whom condemned their own people more often than non-whites (Mencken championed the negro cause and hated rural southern whites). And while Spengler, Evola, Ludovici, and Klages were by modern standards "racist" and "anti-Semitic," not one of those men would be stupid enough to reduce all of politics and history to "the Jew." So why is it implausible that the people who the Linderites call "cowards" just happen not to share the Linderite obsession (and I say this as somebody who dwells quite a bit on the Tribe, so I'm not throwing stones so much as asking an honest question). **
Great post. My views on Linder and his ilk exactly. Linder is always claiming though to have special inside knowledge of the conservative establishment and people like Francis in particular, to the effect that they agree with him 100% but are afraid to say it.
2003-04-29 04:58 | User Profile
AntiYuppie,
Great Post! I do fail to see any reason to attack Sam Francis, he is the best paleoconservative alive today in America. I see no reason why a conservative of any type would like Mencken, have they ever read any of his articles? Or is all they know of him a few quotes? I do think the American paleoconservative should look more to the European "New Right."
The Linderites love to quote Nietzsche and Mencken, both of whom have said as many philosemitic things as things critical of Jews, and both of whom condemned their own people more often than non-whites (Mencken championed the negro cause and hated rural southern whites). And while Spengler, Evola, Ludovici, and Klages were by modern standards "racist" and "anti-Semitic," not one of those men would be stupid enough to reduce all of politics and history to "the Jew." So why is it implausible that the people who the Linderites call "cowards" just happen not to share the Linderite obsession (and I say this as somebody who dwells quite a bit on the Tribe, so I'm not throwing stones so much as asking an honest question).-AntiYuppie
Francis is Right.
"I have a clue for you: Standing on street corners and yelling anti-Semitic slogans isn't a very effectuve way to challeneg much of anything. Hyde Park is full of characters like that. What I have tried to do -- explicitly at the Times and later as well -- has been to make explicit and serious discussion of race respectable. That means picking your shots and not saying everything you'd like to say because you know it will simply baffle or alarm many readers, but it does mean that you can tell many, many people a lot fo things they didn't know or hadn't thought about. I think I was beginning to succeed when I was fired, and that may have been the real reason I was fired."-Francis
2003-04-29 05:55 | User Profile
This makes me really sad, people. Why do you have contempt for Sam Francis? He is doing a hell of a job, and he is making enemies daily by publishing the truth. Do you REALLY think that Francis is not wise to the reality of Jewish influence in this country? Of course he is. As he pointed out in his responses, Francis is not helping anybody if he publishes an unabashed article about Jewish domination of the corridors of power in America. He picks his battles. Criticizing the Juden requires a catalyst, a specific context, in order for such criticism to be tenable to the masses. Francis capatilized on one such catalyst (the Iraq war) in a very effective manner. Pat Buchanan began slamming the Zionist cabal on a DAILY basis on MSNBC. "American Conservative" ran a cover story titled "Whose War?" that "named the Jews" who were clamouring for war with Iraq.
For the love of God, what do you people want? Should Francis begin endorsing a National Socialist revolution? You are all intelligent men, I am sure that you all understand that subtle means are the order of the day when you are disseminating subversive information under the watchful eye of an increasingly authoritarian regime.
Get behind White men like Francis and Buchanan. You can still support VNN and the National Alliance if you feel that that is your true calling...your support for various branches of our cause need not be mutually exclusive.
2003-04-29 06:03 | User Profile
Walter E Kurtz,
Great Post!!!
:gun: :lol: :gun:
2003-04-29 13:16 | User Profile
Contrary to pop opinion, I've only chided Sam, never attacked him. Not even Franco's attacked His Canniness. And even Linder only thrashes him out of frustration.
But isn't it a strange coincidence that the Canny columns following this email exchange have all featured Francis being more openly critical of Zionists than he'd allowed himself to be in years? Alluvasudden, you can't get through a Francis column without encountering four or five "Likudniks".
So - not only is Walter Kurtz correct that both approaches are necessary....they need not be at odds. Each can feed off, and fuel, the other as well.
Linder/Gerhard is right insofar as people lulled to sleep in a house afire need to be violently shaken awake. But Francis' slow-and-steady, better-the-devil-you-know approach has merit also. Nothing triggers buyer's remorse like an armed insurrection that nobody bothered to think all the way through.
The twain, however, is slowly meeting. From here on out is where things get interesting. Whether or not it's the Chinese definition of 'interesting' remains to be seen.
2003-04-29 20:06 | User Profile
**Anti-Yuppie, as quoted by W.R.I.T.O.S.:
"Some of the greatest minds on the Right, including those who by today's standards are racialist, certainly never tried to reduce all of history and politics to "the Jewish question" or even to race."**
Sadly, few of those "great minds" really grasp that most modern history and politics and social problems STEM FROM the actions of one race: Jews. This is why Linderites place so much emphasis on Jews. Even the Nazis, bless their hearts, failed to grasp just how much the Jew has f*#%! up the West. Sad but true.
Those "great minds" of the modern Right need to read much more KMacD [slap, slap!].
2003-10-27 04:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]For all of their sniping back and forth, the Gerhard-Francis disagreement really boils down to the above issue.
The question is whether it is important to have somebody in the mainstream presenting a (strongly watered down) version of our worldview, or whether the cause would be better served by having the writers in question say exactly what they believe at the cost of remaining completely marginal. I strongly believe that the former is an important priority, that one Buchanan has done more to educate people about third world immigration and the Israeli lobby than a thousand Linders ever could.(my emphasis - Okie)
If one writes to entertain the converted and preach to the choir, then obviously the way Gerhard advocates is the path to take. If on the other hand the goal is to reach people who are neutral, unconvinced, or fence-sitters, then it is of the utmost importance to have the message (no matter how watered down) out in officially sanctioned "respectable" venues.
It strikes me that the VNN mindset is the joy of being a big fish in a very small pond of people who already share their worldview 100% rather than convincing others that the worldview is a sensible one. [/QUOTE]
Interesting discussion in light of my recent exchange with Vitebe on Samuel Francis. The traditional racialist criticism of Samuel Francis (to say nothing of Pat Buchanan, who tics them off even more) has simply been that he does not "name the jew". Other than also not explitely "naming the Christian" (the main theme of several of our recently departed but not missed OD comrades) that has been the main theme of the racialists. This thread does seem to prove this criticism has some basis in fact, as Francis, unlike VNN does talk about and even privatey think about some things in the world othre than world jewry. However I was a bit puzzled bit puzzled by Vitebe's seeming criticism of the master theoretician Dr. Francis's not being ideological enough.
I have posted a brief succint analysis of Dr. Francis describing his philosophy of "Middle American Radicalism" to address some of these issues.
[Quote]> O.D.: My only desire is to understand a little more the general lack of recognition of the large amount of material coming from Dr. Francis, and his theories. One can understand it of course coming from posturers and polemicists like Linder, but to hear what seems occasionally on a superficial level the same dismissal of Dr. Francis from you is something I still don't fully understand.
This is especially puzzling since it would seem Dr. Francis shares so many of the same criticisms of mainstream paleo-conservatives, i.e. their "vague nostalgia and misplaced constitutionalism", along with their lack of a comprehensive alternative and concrete plan of political mobilization and action as you.
My signature contains a succinct description of middle American radicalism, albeit in the form of a critique. If you like I can put some other source materials together and start a thread on it shortly if you think some people are likely to read these and be swayed by them, although Francis certainly isn't a new topic here."
V.O.: I am open to hearing what Dr. Francis has to say, outside of his popular articles, but I do have some real reservations about the man. So please do put up a thread that you think would address my concerns expressed about him based upon his writings. In part this goes back to his shutting down SFOL which seemed very cowardly although I have no interest in going over that again. I was more then a little disturbed by the AmRen article he wrote in which he rejected separatism. Also, while rejects globalism, which is obviously good, he has not come out in favour of any real alternative to capitalism which obviously gives rise to it and destroys societal cohesion within an advanced, industrial context which is what's been the rule for the at least 2 generations. Obviously, I favour guildist/ distributalist outlook which I have covered in some detail before although I am open to the less statist forms of syndicalism and corporatism has I don't trust concentrated state power. Again, my books and articles pretty well cover those topics.
I also note that they have no larger ideological structure to put in context with other then the vague nostalgia and misplaced constitutionalism I addressed so often before.
(from [url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?p=63714#post63714]Zionism - A Defense[/url])
2003-10-28 22:03 | User Profile
I don't see the Jews as the end-all-be-all cause of our problems, since, as some have pointed out, all the negative traits characterizing today's West would still be there even if Jews had never set foot outside the Middle East. However, I see the role of Jews as that of catalyst, speeding and enhancing destructive trends that would otherwise proceed slowly enough to be dealt with by any healthy society.
2003-11-03 20:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MadScienceType]I don't see the Jews as the end-all-be-all cause of our problems, since, as some have pointed out, all the negative traits characterizing today's West would still be there even if Jews had never set foot outside the Middle East. However, I see the role of Jews as that of catalyst, speeding and enhancing destructive trends that would otherwise proceed slowly enough to be dealt with by any healthy society.[/QUOTE]
William Pierce's theory was that we have always had destructive people in our race, but only when jews gained immense power and influence in the West did these people prevail. The reason for this was jewish financing of destructive causes and more importantly, jewish control of the media, which excluded from public discourse anyone deemed "bad for the jews"(ie anyone not on board with anti-white, anti-tradition, anti-western, jewish interests come first agenda).
Kevin MacDonald terms jewish influence as a neccessary, but not sufficient cause of the decline of white racial conciousness. MacDonald really goes even further than Pierce in arguing that jews generated the destructive movements as well as promoted them. Pierce always focused more gentile arguments for racial equality based in christianity and liberalism.
2003-11-03 20:43 | User Profile
No simple answer exists to explain why the Occidental world came to be in such dire straits. I fully agree with MacDonld's take on jewish involvement but that's not a full explination. I do think that the remainder can be explained in part by Pareto/Mosca's theory of the decay of elites and that in turn does have a lot to do with Heidegger's thoughts on technology (which Dr. Pierce occassional addressed quite well if not nearly enough) and I feel the "European New Right" critque of capitalism handles the rest.
Of course while the last three things are inter-related the exact means is very complicated and something I don't have a very good grasp on although Oliver's take on Spengler is the begining of a start I suspect. That inter-related dynamic is I am sure what set the ground for the assention of the jews over the Occident and given the societal destruction they have wrought I remain certain that a societal crisis will arise which will end their reign and that transition will in large measure be a product of the demograpic destruction they have been so critical in promoting. I certainly lack the insight to say if those that care about the Occident will be able to get "our acts togeather" when that crisis occurs and make a creadible bid for power.
2003-11-03 23:44 | User Profile
I will not attempt to give an intellectual twist to this thread. While reading it the movie "Patton" came to mind, "Kill the other SOB before he kills you," he or rather George C. Scott said. Time is running out, folks, and it goes beyond naming the Jew. If the Jew is not stopped, millions, perhaps billions, of non-Jews will go to early graves.
-Z-
2003-11-04 16:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MadScienceType]Much like the Constitution, the Scriptures seem to be regarded as a "living" document, meaning simply that they mean whatever the mucety-mucks say they mean at any given time, depending on prevailing social trends, which, oftimes, are set by Jewish cultural influence. How in the heck do you explain the Episcopalians finding justification for an openly homosexual bishop anywhere in Scripture? It truly boggles the mind. Therefore, I don't think you should blame the instrument, but rather the hand that guides it. We need to wrest control of the faith away from the Robertsons, the Falwells and the other assorted goy front men and crazies and return it to something resembling sanity, no mean feat in these nutty times.[/QUOTE] Well said.