← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 6210 | Posts: 25 | Started: 2003-04-17
2003-04-17 12:05 | User Profile
As the Francis Question perambulates among the various splinter-tribes of the Outcast Right, the voices are not growing shriller but, instead, more thoughtful (and harder to argue with).What is this VNN reader saying here that is fundamentally incorrect or- and here's where it becomes comic -"counterproductive"?
[color=blue]Letter to Canny Sammy and the Pallids [/color]
by Ronnie Grant
Loaded: 4/17/2003
Mr. Linder, I just wanted to clarify a few things, with regard to the letter I sent in yesterday's mail section.
As a former fan of Canny Sammy (and now a devoted VNN fan), I hope I made it clear in my letter that the old "conservative," "anti-communist," "confederate," "anti-statist," "constitutionalist," etc. approaches once advocated by groups as diverse as Paleocons, Paleolibertarians, Birchers, Southrons and others, does not work anymore. I recognize now, as Revilo Oliver recognized in his 1981 book, America's Decline - The Education of a Conservative, that the conservative movement (paleo-con or otherwise), as it was once understood, is dead: Here. And contrary to the impression left in my previous letter, Dr. Oliver was consistent in naming the Jew from the very begining, although, in his early years (1950s and 1960s) he was understandably a little bit cautious: partly in keeping with the established rules of the John Birch Society, and because the University of Illinois tried to fire him in 1964 for his controversial American Opinion article on the Kennedy assasination. I had the privilege and honor of meeting Dr. Oliver twice, once in 1964, and another time in 1967, and he was one of the most dignified, cultured, and courtly men I have ever met - a quintissential Southern gentleman in the mold of Robert E. Lee. And I believe his Liberty Bell articles were excellent, and no one could name the Jew with as much wit, humor, erudition and brilliance, as he could.
Paleo-conservatism and American-Renaissance-style-semitically-correct racialism are now discredited intellectual movements, and there is absolutely nothing that can be done to restore the credibility they possessed only a few years ago. So, when I talked of engagement between Paleos and White nationalists in my previous letter, I was not talking about WNs engaging with Lewpus, Flemio, Canny Sammy, Jared Taylor, and the so-called leaders of the Paleo/Southron movement. I was talking about engaging their readers and followers in open and honest debate and discussion on the greatest threat to Western Civilization today, the Jew. In order to avoid confusion, I will use the term Paleo-fans to describe the followers of those movements, rather than Paleo-cons - the latter being the term often used to describe the intellectual leaders of those movements (Lewpus, Canny, etc.).
So, while I still have a soft spot for Canny Sammy (just like Victor Gerhard - as indicated by the compliments he paid to Sammy in the email exchange), I believe in being as tough on him as you and Gerhard have been. Only 3 years ago, I would have supported going easy on Canny, as some readers have recently suggested in the VNN mail section. Not any more. After Jews incited Muslims to murder Americans in 9-11, after the unjust ritual slaughter of a young American girl, Rachel Corrie, and after the unjust slaughter of Iraqis and occupation of their country - which will cause America to be hated like Israel, I am in no mood to compromise with Canny-Sammyism. Hell no! To make matters worse, Jew David Frum recently showed the hatred and contempt with which his tribe regard the Paleos. The likes of Flemio and Lewpus believe that, if they can just raise good arguments against Jewish empire-building on the back of Americans, the Jewish neo-cons would be willing to debate them on the basis of the good ideas that the Paleo-cons and Paleo-libertarians put forward. But Jew Frum proved that the Jews will not debate the Paleos on the merits of their arguments, but will smear them as "anti-semites," "racists," "haters," "nativists," and America-haters. No matter how much Lewpus and his followers keep repeating that they are disciples of two Hebrews, Jew Ludwig Von Mises and Jew Murray Rothbard, the neo-cons will not stop describing Lewpus and his merry gang as "anti-semites."
But while Lewpus, Canny, and Flemio are content to reducing themselves to castrated eunuchs, and to being punching bags for the Jews, I know for a fact that many of their followers (Paleo-fans) would not be willing to subject themselves to such humiliation and debasement. How do I know that? I used to read the readers' forum that Canny Sammy once had on his personal website: [url=http://www.samfrancis.net/]http://www.samfrancis.net/[/url] Sammy's forum contributors were a smart and delightful bunch, and since Sammy did not censor his forum like Jim Robinson, many readers on Sammy's forum named the Jew. Canny Sammy no longer maintains a readers' forum - I think the Jew-naming terrified him. Another example: American Renaissance had a readers' survey in 1996, and it took a whole year, until 1997, for Jared Taylor to make the results of that survey public. Finally, Taylor released the results after a lot of his readers applied pressure on him. Just scroll down to the sub-heading: Who Reads American Renaissance - Responses to the AR Reader Survey:
[url=http://www.amren.com/9778issue/9778issue.html#article1]http://www.amren.com/9778issue/9778issue.html#article1[/url]
Among the findings were that, the second most popular magazine that AR readers subscribed to, was Instauration, a semitically-incorrect magazine was once published by Wilmot Robertson. It was a magazine that explicitly named the Jew. Other semitically-incorrect magazines popular among the AR readership were Spotlight, National Vanguard, Journal of Historical Review, and Barnes Review. When asked to name their favorite non-fiction writer, the semitically-incorrect David Irving, was the third most popular writer among the AR readership. Other semitically-incorrect writers named were Wilmot Robertson, Joseph Sobran, Revilo Oliver and HL Mencken. When asked to name one non-American who did the most to advance the interests of the white race, Adolf Hitler topped the list among the AR readership.
Having said all of the above, I will try to explain to you the historical relationship between white nationalists and conservatives (old rightists) in the United States. Since you informed me some months back that you once worked in the conservative movement, you may be aware of some of the historical facts I am going to describe, although it is not the sort of stuff you may have read in Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind or Paul Gottfried's The Conservative Movement. It is the secret history that most present day "respectable conservatives" will deny exists. The roots of intellectual conservatism lie in the patriotic movements that existed during Franklin Roosevelt's Presidency from 1933 to 1945. It was during those years that Jews began to seize control of the United States government. FDR and his Jew-government managed to win 4 elections in a row using the fraud they called the New Deal, which involved looting the haves and giving to the have-nots, a situation similar to the looting that the U.S. is encouraging in Iraq right now.
Some perceptive Americans in the FDR years began to notice that their government was being taken over by alien Jews, and they resisted the take-over. These patriotic Americans were divided into two groups - constitutionalists and populists (also known as nativists or white nationalists). Both groups were aware of the role of Jews in subverting the U.S., and both groups named the Jew, and worked to lessen Jewish influence in America. But the key difference between the two was that constitutionalists believed that by reverting to the original American constitution, the federal government would be made weak, which would result in the decline of Jewish power (in form of Jewish big-government bureaucrats) that increased during the New Deal, while populists believed that Jewish power could only be destroyed by naming the Jew directly to his face. Constitutionalists included men like Albert Jay Nock and H.L. Mencken. Populists included activists such as Gerald L.K. Smith, Elizabeth Dilling, Sen. Theodore Bilbo, Gerald Winrod, Father Charles Coughlin, and Henry Ford.
The mainstream media marginalized the populists, because they were too explicit in naming the Jew, and were viewed (with justification) as placing America's greatest problems entirely on the Jew alone. The more intellectual path of Albert Jay Nock, H.L. Mencken, and that of likeminded thinkers working in England like T.S. Eliot and Hillaire Belloc, came to be seen as the only respectable path in Jew-naming. Although all four of those brilliant men are now regarded by today's wimpy intellectuals as "anti-semitic," they were considered the lesser evil by liberals of the New Deal Era. H.L. Mecken's magazine, The American Mercury, came to be perhaps the most influential intellectual opposition to FDR's New Deal. Today's wimpy conservatives regard the magazine as that of the "old isolationist right."
Immediately after the World War Two years, Gerald L.K. Smith was the most popular white nationalist populist in America. He was the Dr. William Pierce of his time, and he had hundreds of thousands of followers all over America. In the years after the end of World War Two, some of the wealthy and elitist American patriots decided to form patriotic movements that were more highbrow and respectable than Smith's blue-collar, White-working-man's organization (Mencken was in semi-retirement, shortly after the war). It was at that time (about 1950) that conservatism came into existence as an intellectual movement, although the term "conservative" had not yet been attached to the movement.
The main political cause of the new respectable patriotic movement became anti-communism, and Sen. Joseph McCarthy and Sen. Robert Taft came to be seen as the political leaders of the new movement. The intellectual leaders of the new patriotic movement reasoned that, because most of the top communists in the American government, Hollywood, the media, labor unions, and universities were Jews, then one could reduce alien Jewish influence through anti-communist purges. And to give themselves political cover, the new patriotic movement could recruit token Jews to their cause. The new patriotic movement aimed to accomplish two goals - reduce destructive Jewish influence, and at the same time, retain the social and intellectual respectability for their cause that Gerald L.K. Smith lacked. It was for that reason that Sen. Joseph McCarthy appointed a Jew, Roy Cohn, to be his chief legal counsel.
And when McCarthy's purge started, a great many of those who were caught in the net were Jewish communists, and there was a real fear among the chosenites that Jewish control of the U.S. was being weakened. It was for that reason that the media went hysterical in their attempt to destroy McCarthy, and despite having a Jew as his chief investigator, Tailgunner Joe could not avoid accusations that he was "anti-semitic." The Jews helped elect Dwight Eisenhower, and used him to destroy Joe McCarthy's anti-communist investigation, and to destroy McCarthy himself, a process that Revilo Oliver briefly described in part of a 1968 speech, "What We Owe Our Parasites": [url=http://www.stormfront.org/rpo/parasites.htm]http://www.stormfront.org/rpo/parasites.htm[/url] .
In 1953, Russell Kirk published The Conservative Mind, which gave the emerging "respectable" patriotic movement its new name. In 1955, William F. Buckley Jr. established the National Review magazine, as a way of undermining the main journal of the old isolationist right, The American Mercury. The more authentically patriotic John Birch Society was formed in 1958, in order to revive McCarthy's old efforts to de-jew America using the path of anti-communism. As Oliver described in America's Decline, the JBS leadership knew that the "communist conspiracies" in America they decried were for the most part Jewish conspiracies. But Robert Welch later decided that maintaining "respectability" was far more important than advancing the anti-commie goals he claimed to believe in. Although Welch had been read out of Bill Buckley's mainstream conservative movement by the early 1960s, and he lacked respectability in the mainstream media, Welch still proceeded to betray many of his own followers by collaborating secretly with the Jews (some say that he was protecting his vast business interests). When Oliver discovered that betrayal, it led to tensions between him and Welch, and Oliver resigned from the National Council of the JBS in 1966. The respected journalist, Westbrook Pegler, and the late California congressman, John Schmitz, are two other famous individuals who left the JBS. I was recently amazed to discover that the well known publisher, Willis Carto, of the now defunct Liberty Lobby, is also a former JBS member who left the movement. It is amazing how many well-known rightists have had some association with the Birchers.
By the late 1960s, all the major right-wing movements - from the Citizens' Councils to the JBS, and from the Steuben Society to the Congress of Freedom, became more interested in attaining "respectability" as an end unto itself, than in advancing the patriotic goals that were originally intended. So, today, we have come full circle. If you want to advance a pro-American agenda today, you simply have no other choice than to name the Jew, in the same manner that America's pre-World War Two racial populists did.
Why did I go to all this trouble to describe the emergence of the conservative movement? Two reasons. The first is to show what can happen when a patriotic movement loses its focus, and seeks respectability as its end goal, rather than advancement of its patriotic goals. Secondly, to educate younger people who may be disillusioned by paleocons, but who might be shocked by the explicit Jew-naming being done by VNN, National Alliance, and other pro-white groups. There are many young intelligent Americans who think that Jew-naming is simply part of European history (Joseph de Gobineau, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Alfred Rosenberg, Oswald Mosley, Sergei Nilus, Julius Streicher, Martin Luther, Torquemada, Arnold Leese, Lord Alfred Douglas, etc) and has nothing to do with American history, and that America has no intellectual tradition in Jew-naming. For those disillusioned young Paleo-fans who think that way, they need to study and find out more about New Deal Era patriots such as Gerald L.K. Smith, Henry Ford, Theodore Bilbo, Gerald Winrod, Elizabeth Dilling, and Father Charles Coughlin. It is the actions of those patriots during the corrupt FDR presidency that inspired the formation of the conservative movement in the post-war years. And it is only by going back to the Jew-naming traditions of the New-Deal-era racial populists, that one can advance the true cause of American patriotism.
In 1994, Joe Sobran revealed that Bill Buckley's father, William Buckley Sr., used to secretly support New Deal Era publications that explicitly named the Jew: [url=http://www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/origins/Sobran1994.html]http://www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/origins/Sobran1994.html[/url] But Daddy Buckley wanted that arrangement kept secret, and Bill and his father have always been terrified of people associating them with "anti-semitism." And there is the fact that Revilo Oliver was on the masthead of the National Review in the 1950s. The conservative movement only became Jew-friendly in the 1960s, after Buckley began purging his movement of those who harmed the "respectability" of the movement. One can plausibly say that the original American conservative movement died in the 1960s, and all we have had from the 1960s to today, are mere jerk jobs. Sure, the Paleo-cons gave us a little bit of excitement in the 1980s and 1990s when they did battle with the neo-cons. And Pat Buchanan caused some patriots to have a tingling sensation in 1992 and 1996, when he talked of angry peasants with pitchforks, about to launch what Canny Sammy would describe as a Middle American revolution. But that is all behind us.
The Jews who control America are now planning to use American soldiers as cannon fodder to destroy Syria, after having used them to slaughter thousands of Iraqis. The Jews are now out of control. The reason why they have gotten so far out of control, is because we have all been too terrified to face them and stand up to them. Hell, we are even afraid to name them. There are worse things in this world than to be called an "anti-semite." The grieving family members of dead American soldiers, and of dead Iraqi civilians, would give anything to get their kin folk back. If they had to choose between getting their loved ones back and walking around with the label of "anti-semite"; or having their loved ones stay dead, they, in all likelihood, wouldn't give a sh*t for the anti-semite label. If I had to send a message to Canny Sammy, it would be:
"The world has changed since 9-11 and since the Iraq war began. When Jewish policies are actually leading to human beings being slaughtered, the time for jerking off is over. You either name the Jew, or drop the pretence that you represent American interests. You either have to put up or shut up."
And to the American patriots, whether white nationalists or Paleo-fans (or in my case, an ex-paleo-fan), they should learn from Jew David Frum. The Paleo-con intellectuals have avoided naming the Jew, but Jew Frum recently declared that he and his fellow tribesmen will turn their backs on the Paleos. In Frum's memorable words: [url=http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp]http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp[/url]
War is a great clarifier. It forces people to take sides. The paleoconservatives have chosen and the rest of us must choose too. In a time of danger, they have turned their backs on their country. Now we turn our backs on them.
Of course, by "country," he means U.S.-ZOG. Patriots who want their "real country" back should declare:
Flemio, Canny Sammy, Lewpus, Jared Taylor, and the rest of the gang. You have a choice. As Jew Frum said, you must choose sides. You either name the Jew, or we patriots are going to turn our backs on you, as well.
Sincerely,
Ronnie Grant
2003-04-17 14:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 17 2003, 08:05 ** [color=green]As the Francis Question perambulates among the various splinter-tribes of the Outcast Right, the voices are not growing shriller but, instead, more thoughtful (and harder to argue with).What is this VNN reader saying here that is fundamentally incorrect or- and here's where it becomes comic -"counterproductive"?[/color]
**
I'll take a [color=blue]stab[/color] at it. There is a problem here that you're not naming, one that makes this type of critique go [color=blue]splat[/color] with the readership at which it should be aimed. While the overall theme is supposedly one of sharpened focus, the message that really stands out is that Grant is taking a [color=blue]poke[/color] at Francis and other related paleo-con types. Where is the cohesion that is necessary to stay on message? Why, instead of finding some common ground, does Grant advocate that Francis and other paleocons simply get [color=blue]insert appropriate sexual innuendo here[/color]?
Come on. While there can be some minor quibbles made about Grant's read on history (example: McCarthy actually having a choice about Cohn, and then choosing him to provide cover, is debatable), the real issues here are those of style and of productivity. Grant seems to value an intellectual approach (Revilo Oliver) while naming names; of what value is advocating an intellectual approach while repeatedly disparaging those with similar goals (but using different tactics) as indulging in "jerking off"? This language is pointless macho of the worst sort, and is indeed counterproductive in the extreme. It won't reach the kind of minds needed to be productive; it appeals to Televitz-educated "intellects" who guffaw at the latest Seinfeldian gutterfests during halftime of the NFL game. Tough guys flinging about accusations of "jerking off" are stuck in the high school lockerrooms of their memory; what if anything of substance do these types bring to the table? Sure, you'd trust these guys to take your back in an alley fight- but what about when taking on the Frums and the Bennetts?
Humor is fine, but using this language as a rally call is pointless. The audience is gone before they hear the message. Francis and others like him are bland to those VNN readers advocating "action", but to the multitude who are unaware they sound revolutionary. There is a place for empathy with the readership- not to care about how they "feel", but to recognize that for a populace sedated by television and mass media, VNN-style advocacy is counter-productive as an introduction to an alternate way of perceiving reality. Driving these people away is counterproductive, and the use of crude sexual innuendo to disparage others in a disagreement only reveals a lazy mind.
Linder is brilliant and hilarious at times, but considering the ITZ style as a tool for outreach is deluded. That is, unless those being targeted are the mentally disturbed goosesteppers recruited by the ADL for display on Faux News. I won't associate with them, and not for fear of career loss or public contempt. These types are over before they get started.
2003-04-17 16:00 | User Profile
Only 3 years ago, I would have supported going easy on Canny, as some readers have recently suggested in the VNN mail section. Not any more.
Gerhard and now this author keep mentioning how "just a short while ago" they saw the usefulness of Francis, et al., but now they've "outgrown" them. Every time they make this observation, they are proving the case made by AY here (among others) that Francis is a key figure in winning converts from the "mainstream conservative" base out there. Those who climbed up the Francis ladder now want to pull that ladder up and make the people at the bottom "prove" their ideological worthiness by jumping the whole distance up and not relying on "wimpy" and "traitorous" ladders. Those who would abandon Francis have forgotten where they came from and how they got there. They suffer from both a lack of memory and a lack of foresight.
2003-04-17 17:40 | User Profile
That may change soon. The decisions we make here will determine the course of that movement, when and if it is ever born.
Maybe there's a "third way" here, for lack of a better term, to chart that course.
I think the "principled opposition" to our decline spent far too long defending themselves against charges they were racist, anti-semite, whatever. To the public, the "But Some of My Best Friends are Jews/Blacks" defense indicates guilt (as Raimondo is finding out) and only encourages more attacks along the same line by one's enemies. Thus was the neutralization Wintermute mentions achieved. No need to apoligize for your views, but there's also no need to scream, "suck it, Hymie!" every chance you get.
Think about Moran or even Jellyfish Lott. Had they had even one ounce of balls, they would have people sending them donations even if it meant eating Top Ramen the rest of the month.
To support by use another example, does anyone remember when the head of the NRA, LaPierre, came out in 1999/early 2000 and made the obvious, though indelicate, statement that Bill Clinton was happy with a certain level of gun violence because it furthered the gun-grabbing agenda? The hysteria generated was on a par with the Lott affair, but ol' Wayne didn't back down, and the NRA's membership went up dramatically. Of course, that was all a gimmick and the NRA soon went back to their compromising ways, resulting in a membership slide, but the proof-of-principle is there. Perhaps this concept is the reason we're seeing a round-up, courtesy of Chertoff, of anything remotely resembling a respectable White leader these days. The Jews are trying the same thing that was tried to get rid of baby Jesus! Maybe they invented it...
Also, compare Bushy's poll numbers early on in the 2000 campaign to later. When he appeared to be "conservative" he had a 16 point lead, courtesy of people desperate to wipe the come-stain of the Clinton administration off the legs of their collective pants, but when the Chimp (thanks, NBF, for that one!) opened his trap and showed that we were in for socialism-lite (was there anything more grating than hearing him pule about "compassionate conservatism" for the thousandth time?) and worse, he dropped steadily throughout the summer and fall, only to eke out a win courtesy of the friendly line judges on the SC.
Oh, and good point, PA, about chutes and ladders, as I went that way myself, but one would hope Francis would be open to constructive criticism. Yes, I agree that "jerking off" ain't exactly constructive, but Francis himself isn't above throwing around locker-room invective when he's piqued (his "mutual masturbation" comments come to mind).
"When Gentiles fight, a Jew laughs..."
2003-04-17 18:19 | User Profile
This entire contretemps all comes down to the individual [racially aware] gentile's conception of how much time is left and how near the door is the wolf.
If you think there's time enough yet, then Francis/Flemio/Buchanan et al are the way to go. Go slow, remain calm, watch the potty-mouth, gather in those new recruits one at a time, hang in there - and just you watch our smoke in 2050!
If you think the eleventh hour is already here, then of course all of the above are like the weak defensive arm-flailings of a triple-bypass recipient from an Intensive Care sickbed: much too little, much too late and serving no purpose but to pointlessly ride your brakes in single-lane traffic, blocking bolder drivers in a hurry to get somewhere.
I'll say this much: we ARE in the first stages of a totally open-ended world war; that war may well directly involve billions of people before it's over, not to mention a few nuclear arsenals. The stated purpose of this war is nothing less than to remake/remodel the entire planet to meet Jewish specifications. This seems hardly the time to watch cautiously from the rafters, repeating "Let's just see where this is going before we act" over and over again like a mantra.
One further point: those 14 million people who now hold the fate of six billion other people in their sweaty palms? Know how they scored that catbird seat? By ignoring the physical risks inherent in their huge numerical inferiority and relentlessly Naming Their Enemies (Christianity, nationalism, Islam, cultural homogeneity and monogamy among gentiles, etc) , out loud and forcefully, the very minute they acquired a cultural foothold, however rickety, in their host nations. (Give em credit for having the kind of balls that follow marching orders from their smarts, at least.) Jews have an acronym for the purpose their Francises and Flemios serve: S.F.G.
Strictly For Goyim. When David Horowitz seeks cachet with Joe Sixpack by writing things called HATING WHITEY, that's SFG. When he calls Joe Sixpack a Stalinist traitor for refusing to die for Israel, that's the real Horowitz. When 'moderate, reasonable' Jews came forward to condemn Meir Kahane's rhetoric...that's SFG. When they name streets after the Kahanite mass-murderer Goldberg, that's mask- off. When FR Jews consecrate the memory of 9/11 as a day of infamous perfidy, that's SFG. When your account gets instabanned for even mentioning the USS Liberty....
Got it now? And there are a few of us who are starting to realize that there are ostensible paleos and even WNs whose public utterances are SFJ - yet who don't have a second setting. Their masks have been on so long - for caution's sake, they're never removed - that they no longer can come off - they're ossified.
2003-04-17 18:23 | User Profile
Originally posted by weisbrot@Apr 17 2003, 14:30 > Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 17 2003, 08:05 ** As the Francis Question perambulates among the various splinter-tribes of the Outcast Right, the voices are not growing shriller but, instead, more thoughtful (and harder to argue with).What is this VNN reader saying here that is fundamentally incorrect or- and here's where it becomes comic -"counterproductive"? **
I'll take a [color=blue]stab[/color] at it. There is a problem here that you're not naming, one that makes this type of critique go [color=blue]splat[/color] with the readership at which it should be aimed. While the overall theme is supposedly one of sharpened focus, the message that really stands out is that Grant is taking a [color=blue]poke[/color] at Francis and other related paleo-con types. Where is the cohesion that is necessary to stay on message? Why, instead of finding some common ground, does Grant advocate that Francis and other paleocons simply get [color=blue]insert appropriate sexual innuendo here[/color]?
Come on. While there can be some minor quibbles made about Grant's read on history (example: McCarthy actually having a choice about Cohn, and then choosing him to provide cover, is debatable), the real issues here are those of style and of productivity. Grant seems to value an intellectual approach (Revilo Oliver) while naming names; of what value is advocating an intellectual approach while repeatedly disparaging those with similar goals (but using different tactics) as indulging in "jerking off"? This language is pointless macho of the worst sort, and is indeed counterproductive in the extreme. It won't reach the kind of minds needed to be productive; it appeals to Televitz-educated "intellects" who guffaw at the latest Seinfeldian gutterfests during halftime of the NFL game. Tough guys flinging about accusations of "jerking off" are stuck in the high school lockerrooms of their memory; what if anything of substance do these types bring to the table? Sure, you'd trust these guys to take your back in an alley fight- but what about when taking on the Frums and the Bennetts?**
I wouldn't want these guys at a back alley fight. They probably would never show up anyway, but would always harp on you for fighting "too nice".
In all fairness, I don't think these guys are really interested in taking on the Frum's and the Bennett's. They're too busy bashing the Taylors, Flemings, Francis's, and Buchanan's. They aren't interested in building the right, they're just interested in cannibalizing it.
Their problem with the paleoconservatism is fairly simple, they see in it an accomodation to all those things, constitutionalism and rule of law, religion, liberal freedoms, and western civilization - that they ultimately want to destroy.
The personal pique though they seem to feel at Buchanan and Francis I think has a different source though. I think they resent the fact that Francis's and Buchanan's at times rather deliberate vagueness (i.e. canniness) mirrors and exposes their own vagueness and lack of direction much more clearly. Because what they mean by "naming the Jew" is deliberately not defined by them either. The logic on their attack on reason points out that there really is only one way to satisy them - by being willing to endorse the physical extermination of Jewry (and probably a lot of other races).
I'm not sure if theirs is a genuine position, or that of the provocateur. In either case it doesn't affect the end result - complete marginalization and political irrelevancy.
2003-04-17 18:31 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 17 2003, 18:19 Got it now? And there are a few of us who are starting to realize that there are ostensible paleos and even WNs whose public utterances are SFJ - yet who don't have a second setting. Their masks have been on so long - for caution's sake, they're never removed - that they no longer can come off - they're ossified.
I really don't get it. What's the difference between the neo SFG and the paleo SFJ, (assuming your assumption of deception and not principle is true)?Why are the tactics of one so much more to be lauded than the other?
If there is a mirror relationship, I just see its because the Jews are much more established culturally than the paleo's. At a similar stage in the growth of their cultural power, Jews in Europe and America were similarly unassertive. That's why many of the new left for instance derided this old school of Jews (like Abbie Hoffman derided his Jewish judge at the Chicago 7 trials).
2003-04-17 18:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Apr 17 2003, 16:23 **> ** Those who climbed up the Francis ladder now want to pull that ladder up and make the people at the bottom "prove" their ideological worthiness by jumping the whole distance up and not relying on "wimpy" and "traitorous" ladders. **
IMHO, the scapegoating urge should always be avoided, on general principle. In this specific situation, it is wildly counterproductive.**
Except when we're bashing Christians.
However, the author whose letter IR posted has some important things to say. His history of the conservative movement in America proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we've been through this all before. American 'conservative' groups who intended to 'get around' to the Jewish question never did. All were neutralized and we live in the United States that resulted from their lack of foresight.
I guess that's what's happens when you don't bash Christians enough.
**Rather than repeat the same mistakes, we obviously must chart a new path. And by 'we' I mean the members of this board and interested lurkers. All the hoo-ah around these parts regarding a 'movement' leave me unimpressed: there is no such thing - for now.
That may change soon. The decisions we make here will determine the course of that movement, when and if it is ever born.
Wintermute** Hmm, there's no such thing as a movement, but we determine the course of the movement that will be forever. :huh:
What new gods should we worship, to bring about this transendent level of insight and rejuvenation? Have you divined this in one of your occultish seances, and can you translate for us unenlightened?
2003-04-17 18:46 | User Profile
I really don't get it.
Jews are in this to win. A lot of us are in this to strike a dignified pose upon the sinking ship as the last wave swallows her from sight.
2003-04-17 19:01 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 17 2003, 18:19 ** If you think there's time enough yet, then Francis/Flemio/Buchanan et al are the way to go. Go slow, remain calm... **
I respectfully disagree with this whole line of thought.
Francis' customers take in information one way, VNN fans another. Up front and personal I've found that people influence by Francis and/or Duke or even Fleming are likely to act on the information they get, and they tend to be professionals so they are in a position to act quite usefully.
As far as timing goes, ???
Is it any later now than it was 3 years ago? Whites below a certain income threshold are much more threatened now, and are much more likely to see the connection between their increasing wanity and the powers that be. From this point of view, whether they are getting information from Francis, a more radical source, or their own experience is not especially important.
To each his own. Francis gets his digs in in his own way. He has a national voice and his job is keep using it and not get fired and leave us with one less voice. Sounds like a precarious balancing act; no point in making it more difficult.
2003-04-17 19:02 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 17 2003, 18:46 ** > I really don't get it. Jews are in this to win. A lot of us are in this to strike a dignified pose upon the sinking ship as the last wave swallows her from sight. ** What do you expect from der untermenschen?
2003-04-17 19:24 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 17 2003, 14:46 ** > I really don't get it.
Jews are in this to win. A lot of us are in this to strike a dignified pose upon the sinking ship as the last wave swallows her from sight. **
Therefore, to defeat "the Jew" we become "the Jew".
We're not talking about hair bands vs. punkers here; this poseur trash talk is beneath the discussion or should be.
Ragnar's point about differing modes of learning is very perceptive, as is the observation that those who absorb the implicit messages of Francis, Taylor and others- as opposed to those headbanging along with Linder-as-prophet- are the demographic likely to be most effective. Texas Dissident's point about how most intelligent individuals prefer to arrive at their opinions by themselves, without emotional or intellectual coercion, is also valuable. An individual whose world is rocked by following the trail of a Sam Francis ellipsis is infinitely more valuable than the Hail, Yeah of some violence-prone ape responding to the latest kill-em-all provocations.
No one said the situation wasn't dire. But if we become the enemy where are we then?
2003-04-17 19:47 | User Profile
That's right, Buchanan and Francis win new recruits one at a time, sometimes a few dozen at the time. In contrast, VNN wins recruits at a rate of zero at a time, because it only serves as a venue for those who already share their worldview 100%.
Not so. The first time I (and many many others) beheld VNN, I was horrified and sure it was an ADL plant of some sort. It was only over a period of months that the site won me over because I began to understand what Linder was doing. And I guarantee the same is true for thousands of VNN readers.
If it weren't, Linder's Alexas could have never skyrocketed the way they have; they've have begun huge!
And - sorry,Charlie - but the guy who affects the position that "VNN is really beneath contempt though it's crudely amusing at times and besides I only go there for the news links anyway", who manages to visit the site 3-4-5 times a week, contempt or no contempt?
That's right...he's a "convert" too. In a Sam Francis kinda way, of course.
2003-04-17 23:07 | User Profile
AY --
Not to sound snotty [I am not being so], but how can you ask, "what has anyone learned from VNN" with a straight face?
Does Sam Francis tell his readers about how Jews sacked America from 1900 onward, as here in an essay at VNN? [url=http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn/showEssay.asp?essayID=1141]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn/sho...sp?essayID=1141[/url]
Nope!
VNN has BOATLOADS of great info, if one simply surfs around that website -- info that you will find nowhere else, and especially not from Francis, Brimelow, et al.
Maybe you'd better surf around VNN for a few days, in the archives and old letters, and report back. I think you will find that you were uninformed about VNN as a learning tool.
[Not to mention Wolzek's Terror Timeline, a vital learning tool at VNN, at the top of the main page].
2003-04-18 02:46 | User Profile
Wintermute:> In some ways, I am the man that IR accuses of wanting to strike a dignified pose on the deck of the wounded ship.
Unfortunately, youââ¬â¢re not the only one so inclined onboard.
2003-04-18 03:36 | User Profile
I don't care how high its ratings get. If it ain't in the King's English it can't be effective! Besides, it has a pimple on its butt. :taz:
The psyche of the broad masses is accessible only to what is strong and uncompromising. Like a woman whose inner sensibilities are not so much under the sway of abstract reasoning but are always subject to the influence of a vague emotional longing for the strength that completes her being, and who would rather bow to the strong man than dominate the weakling ââ¬â in like manner the masses of the people prefer the ruler to the suppliant and are filled with a stronger sense of mental security by a teaching that brooks no rival than by a teaching which offers them a liberal choice. They have very little idea of how to make such a choice and thus they are prone to feel that they have been abandoned. They feel very little shame at being terrorized intellectually and they are scarcely conscious of the fact that their freedom as human beings is impudently abused; and thus they have not the slightest suspicion of the intrinsic fallacy of the whole doctrine. They see only the ruthless force and brutality of its determined utterances, to which they always submit. ~ Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ch. 2
2003-04-18 04:15 | User Profile
One aspect everyone is forgetting, is that Jews are brought up in the way that they are tribal and ethnocentric without the need to promote and endorse Kahane on every corner. The underlying problem is the deracination and brainwashing of the whites that has happened. It's not about how to promote the cause of Western Civilization, with westerners being on the same wavelength, it's about how to awaken the sheeple and jumpstart their thought process. If westerners had had the degree of self-awareness even slightly approaching the Jewish one, there wouldn't be a need to talk about VNN vs. Buchanan.
2003-04-18 06:00 | User Profile
Funny how - in the midst of this "VNN brings nothing to the table" argument, I just dashed off a note of thanks to Linder for reprinting three of Saki's fin-de-siecle "Reginald" stories. As you may or may not know, VNN occasionally runs fiction and essays by now-obscure or forgotten writers in the hope of introducing younger (or less-well-read) readers to the seminal thinkers, great storytellers and effortless stylists that the Propasphere would just as soon consign to the Dead White Male file cabinet.
He additionally runs irregular "White Art" takeouts that serve the same purpose - to spark an interest and appreciation in past masters among a readership that may never have encountered them before. Though he might never phrase it thusly, he's doing it simply out of love/enthusiasm/admiration for great work, with the commensurate missionary zeal.
Is this "nothing"? Do these types of "conversions" not count? There's no "value" in this compared to VDARE's anemic year-in, year-out thrashing of the same dead horse (and people say Linder is one-note? Ha!)
This is just one random example refuting this popular-but-baseless claim that VNN is no more than a virtual beer hall belching to the sort of choir all decent conservatives are well rid of. It's nonsense, and it's nonsense that -in the case of this thread - is wholly immaterial.
Here is the only 'Sam Francis' issue, and in Linder's own words:
"Your average White does not have the paranoia-feelers of the jew; he's decent, well-intentioned, and assumes others are too. He is not going to grasp the nature of the jew unless he has dealings with them, or unless somebody points it out to him, because jews, unlike coloreds, are such a small and invisible minority. This is precisely where the education of a syndicated column would do some good. If the top brains won't provide that education, then...where are we? Exactly in the situation we find ourselves. Where "our" guys can't say the one thing that matters because then they'd lose their valuable forum for...saying what matters.
Francis is pushing the same old don't-mention-'em policy that has killed us for decades: advance by retreat. But -- and you can take my word on this -- there are many, many, many White people just crying for genuine political leadership that is overtly and unembarassedly White. I can feel it in the letters I get. You may think that Francis has access to a whole lot more people than I do, but that's not true. VNN has as many readers as Vdare. And before too long, we will have more than any conservative or racist site in the world. We already have enough readership to put us in the ballpark with anybody.
And then, where you're most missing the point, is acting like we don't attract worthy people. First off, since you use it as a counterexample, I can tell you that everybody at Vdare reads us. Peter Brimelow told me at the start he would try to find a way to link to us. Hasn't happened in three years, ha. Yes, men afraid even to link to sites battling their common enemy are going to lead the revolution! Not likely... Take what you say about VNN and see from the opposite direction. Look how far we've come from nothing, and how much farther we can go if we could get more of the can't-say-that smart guys to lose their fear! THATZ the real story."
If Linder is being truthful about Brimelow here (and guys like him, whom others wish would just shut up or tamp down his rhetoric, may be many things - but 'liar' is generally not one of them), then Francis' staunchest defenders are kidding themselves. You guys won't lower yourselves to drink the water at VNN.....but your exemplars do. When they're sure nobody's looking. Think about that, too.
2003-04-18 15:13 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 17 2003, 15:47 ** > That's right, Buchanan and Francis win new recruits one at a time, sometimes a few dozen at the time. In contrast, VNN wins recruits at a rate of zero at a time, because it only serves as a venue for those who already share their worldview 100%.
Not so. The first time I (and many many others) beheld VNN, I was horrified and sure it was an ADL plant of some sort. It was only over a period of months that the site won me over because I began to understand what Linder was doing. And I guarantee the same is true for thousands of VNN readers.
If it weren't, Linder's Alexas could have never skyrocketed the way they have; they've have begun huge!
And - sorry,Charlie - but the guy who affects the position that "VNN is really beneath contempt though it's crudely amusing at times and besides I only go there for the news links anyway", who manages to visit the site 3-4-5 times a week, contempt or no contempt?
That's right...he's a "convert" too. In a Sam Francis kinda way, of course. **
Actually, no one here has stated that VNN or its approach is beneath contempt. On the other hand, this seems to be the point made by Linder and Grant- that since Francis won't "name", he is contemptible and should be pushed out of the way. I don't think either position- that VNN is too overtly antagonistic to be an effective introduction, and the one that states Francis is ineffective due to being overly bland- is one of "affect". These are opinions under discussion, IR.
I wouldn't describe myself as a convert, but I did read Francis's work before finding VNN. If I hadn't read Francis and others like him before that initial visit, I wouldn't have returned for any reason, most likely. However, having had that introduction via Francis, Taylor and MacDonald, I stayed around and was intrigued by much of what I read there. I just don't find it particularly effective as a tool for reaching the huge numbers of people who are perhaps troubled by the jingoism of Faux News and maybe question $10b in aid to Israel, but they're just not sure why. Maybe for some, VNN will come later. But for most- those with limited time, resources and even imagination to devote to the topic- probably not.
Besides, you should know- having tracked my visits- that the masterful cartoons of RaZoR are the real draw for my visits, not the news links...
2003-04-18 18:39 | User Profile
VNN cartoons. Yeah, well, you can't win 'em all. But we might be luring great illustrators & draftsmen into The Movement every day ...if only Sam Francis would name the damn Jew!
Kidding! Kidding!
2003-04-18 19:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 18 2003, 14:39 ** VNN cartoons. Yeah, well, you can't win 'em all. But we might be luring great illustrators & draftsmen into The Movement every day ...if only Sam Francis would name the damn Jew!
Kidding! Kidding! **
Well, best of luck...
[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20000829114156/http://www.tattoojew.com/supermensch.html]http://web.archive.org/web/20000829114156/...upermensch.html[/url]
Did you know Superman is Jewish? by Harry Brod "Jerry Siegel, whose teen-age yearning for girls gave the world Superman, died in Los Angeles on Sunday."
So read the obituary in the New York Times on January 31, 1996. Siegel's Depression era experiences in Cleveland, Ohio led him and boyhood buddy Joe Shuster (brother of the Shuster in the comedy team Wayne and Shuster), both Jews (a fact unmentioned in the Times mini-bio), to create that great modern American Jewish superhero, Superman.
"What the...?" as Superman would say in the comics. Superman is Jewish?
Of course, he is. And if Jews themselves can't recognize it, at least some thers see the signs. Henry Lewis Gates, Jr. has written of "Superman, the hero from Ellis Island, personified as an undocumented alien who had been naturalized by the ultimate American couple, Eben and Sarah Kent." Immigrant refugee baby Kal-El had been transported into permanent exile by his parents who had to remain to be killed in the destruction of their home in a great holocaust. Superman, whose first appearance was in the June 1938 issure of Action Comics, sure was the 'man of tomorrow," an uncannily prescient Jewish tomorrow.
To those Midwestern farmers in whose midst he grew up, Superman must have seemed quite "a strange being from another planet, with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men," abilities derived from his origin as a member of a race of super-intelligent scientists nurtured by a red (shades of the Red scare?) sun.
In a classically assimilationist name change, Kal-EI of Krypton became Clark Kent, first of SmaIlville, and then as an adult of Metropolis, following an equally classic pattern of urbanization.
But why after all did he hang on to that Clark Kent persona, since within the reality of the story Clark, with all his weaknesses, is an entirely fictitious personality? Because the psychic trick Siegel and Shuster needed to pull off only worked if at the same time that we knew who Superman really was, we also knew that the world, in its stupidity, saw him only as Clark, a timid, socially inept, physically clumsy, sexually ineffectual quasi-intellectual with glasses and apparently only one blue suit. In other words, the classic Jewish nebbish. But little did they know! Jewish men had only to tear off their clothes and throw off their glasses to reveal the surging superman underneath, physique fully revealed by those skin-tight red and blue tights, and flaunted by that billowing cape.
Again from Siegelââ¬â¢s Times obit:
"I had crushes on several attractive girls who either didn't know I existed or didnââ¬â¢t care I existed," he said. "It occurred to me: what if I had something going for me, like jumping over buildings or throwing cars around or something like that?"
No wonder that first appearance of Superman on the cover of Action Comics showed him lifting a car over his head and smashing it into a hillside.
But why does he want Lois to fall in love with his false self, nebbish Clark, rather than with who he really is, a Superman?
Another Jewish cartoonist, Jules Feiffer, had an answer. In his introduction to The Great Comic Book Heroes, Feiffer writes that this is Supermanââ¬â¢s joke on the rest of us. Superman sees 'mortal men' as the world sees Clark, a view equivalent to how the anti-Semitic world sees Jewish men. His wish for Lois to fall in love with Clark then expresses both his misanthropy and misogyny, the former as the revenge of the nerd for the worldââ¬â¢s anti-Semitism, the latter echoing the plot of Shakespeareââ¬â¢s A Midsummer-Nightââ¬â¢s Dream, where Fairie King Oberon shows his contempt for and power over Queen Titania by having her fall in love with an ass, Bottom.
Iââ¬â¢m not sure the psychodynamics experienced by American Jewish men have changed all that much since Supermanââ¬â¢s creation by these young Jewish men. I still see Jewish men trying to prove themselves Tough Jews, as the title of Paul Breinesââ¬â¢ book names them, in all too many ways: as neo-conservative Jewish men try to demonstrate that theyââ¬â¢re not "bleeding heart weak sisters" as religious fervor or the "Never Again" slogan are misappropriated by militant West Bank Israeli settlers originally from Brooklyn; as Jewish men resist what they feel is the threat of Jewish feminism.
At some level, Siegel and Shuster and the culture that made Superman an icon sensed that the fictional character responded to real needs perhaps particularly crystallized in the psyches of Jewish men as they tried to measure up to Diaspora standards of masculinity wherein they were strangers in a strange land, but also felt to some degree by all men marginalized in one way or another, as they try to prove their superiority in the hierarchies established among men and between men and women.
With Siegelââ¬â¢s passing at age 81 both of Supermanââ¬â¢s co-creators are now gone, Joe Shuster having died in 1992. As the Times notes, to many Siegel is perhaps most remembered not for his creation (and it should be noted that with Superman Siegel and Shuster created not just a character but the entire genre of comic book superheroes), but "as the naive young man who sold the rights a billion-dollar cultural juggernaut for $130." They both lived near poverty most of their lives.
Supermanââ¬â¢s continuing popularity attests to the continuing desire of many of us who see ourselves as Clark Kents or who fear that others perceive us this way to see ourselves as secret Supermen. But in the (now canceled) Adventures of Lois and Clark TV series Clark is no longer the mouse of old, having adventures in his own right, and Superman has let Lois in on his secret. We can at least hope that this portends a new Jewish tomorrow, when the need to seek psychic overcompensation for anti-Semitism is no longer felt.
2003-04-18 19:39 | User Profile
Another Jew article about fellow Jews. All legends in their own minds.
2003-04-18 22:50 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 18 2003, 12:39 ** VNN cartoons. Yeah, well, you can't win 'em all. But we might be luring great illustrators & draftsmen into The Movement every day ...if only Sam Francis would name the damn Jew!
Kidding! Kidding! **
Francis is perfectly willing to identify the "Likudniks" as the cancer of the current Regime. I do believe, though, that Francis views the Jewish issue as a symptom of the problem rather than the ultimate cause.
Personally, I feel that folks like the VNN crew are quite crude and irrational. In my opinion, and I may be flamed for this, folks like Linder are not even "useful idiots". Extremists of this ilk do nothing but marginalize everybody who attacks the Zionist government of the USA. Additionally, one cannot rest sole blame for all of the regime's crimes on the Jew. Whites granted the Jew the power that he now wields...Whites can also take this power away.
2003-04-19 19:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Apr 19 2003, 11:22 ** The question of whether Jewish pressure is the cause of the West's decline is by no means an open and shut case. It would seem to me the fact that Jews have been in the Occident for centuries without any strong ill effects except in those cases where gentiles have usurped power suggests that the decline of Western gentiles is the root of the problem while Jewish power is simply a symptom. **
One could say that runny nose is a symptom, but that doesn't mean that the virus causing it isn't to blame. There are always occasions when the immune system gets weaker, and there are always parasites to take advantage of that. What happens today is just another bout of desease. If the host doesn't die this time, what are the chances it's not going to occur again? Does the Occident have built-in defenses against the tribesmen, or does it have to become a "Jew" to fight fire with fire?
2003-04-29 01:45 | User Profile
I read Linder's website regularly for a while but got tired of the same old sh*t and wading through the garbage was not worth it just a for a few witty sentences. Linder is talented but he just posts up any garbage that people send. Those cartoons blow and give "the movement" a cheap, low class image. Even "A. Wyatt Man" cartoons, which were well drawn and funny, are politically useless.
American idiots have to learn what Euronationalists have learned. It is better to do nothing at all than to do things badly. If you can't get some one to draw a decent cartoon, then don't have cartoons. VNN is like a car with pleather interior and faux wood paneling.