← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Conservative
Thread ID: 6959 | Posts: 88 | Started: 2003-05-27
2003-05-27 23:44 | User Profile
KKK, Nazi, and Skinheads, I've read, have been classified as de facto domestic terrorist groups. Thus, Original Dissent forum is doing a good job of not affiliating with those people (there is always a chance of the FBI accusing people of guilt by association). Keep this forum mainstream, just like Jewish Nationalists keep their look mainstream, for example: [url=http://www.adl.org/]http://www.adl.org/[/url] and [url=http://www.frontpagemag.com/]http://www.frontpagemag.com/[/url]
Regards,
Ares
2003-05-27 23:53 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ares@May 27 2003, 23:44 **KKK, Nazi, and Skinheads, I've read, have been classified as de facto domestic terrorist groups.ÃÂ ÃÂ Thus, Original Dissent forum is doing a good job of not affiliating with those freaks (there is always a chance of the FBI accusing people of guilt by association).ÃÂ Keep this forum mainstream, just like Jewish Nationalists keep their look mainstream, for example: **
Do you have a link here about the FBI classifications? I wonder which and on what basis of these groups were actually classified as terrorists. Some of these groups probably do advocate violence, but many do not (the NA being one example of a mainstream organization).
There seems to be a creeping tendency to label all un-PC organizations as "terroristic". As for instance in Canada with Zundel.
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=24&t=7990&view=getlastpost]Zundel A Terrorist[/url]
2003-05-27 23:54 | User Profile
Ok. So, we don't name the jew, don't blame the Blacks for the high-crime rate, don't criticize non-white immigration, don't take pride in our Race...in other words, we become freepers.
I mean, if they consider even a site like [url=http://www.vdare.com/pb/salon.htm]VDARE[/url] a White Nationalist site, we're doomed. They get to decide who is a "terrorist" and who is not. They make the rules. It's all very arbitrary and it sucks.
Not flaming you. I understand your point, I just hate the way jews get to control the debate.
2003-05-28 01:34 | User Profile
**I understand your point, I just hate the way jews get to control the debate. **
I sort of object to the rigid compartmentalization into near-zoological categories for white folks who just want their own country back. And the funniest/saddest thing of all is the ethnic/racial bloc we're at loggerheads about - do we woo them? trick them? awaken them? ignore them?, etc - who represent the most formidable obstacle to the sovereignty of white people in their own homeland are:
WHITE PEOPLE!
Absurd, innit? So in light of this, I'm thinking of describing myself by the most incendiary political label of them all: White Man.
Believe me, "white man" trumps every other category in loaded significance. It's scarier than White Nationalist, Anti-Immigrationist and Neo-Nazi put together. And it shoves the race traitors right into the same box with us, to their eternal discomfort.
We're making it too easy for the quislings to play to the cheap seats and theatrically declaim, "I am not - and will never be - a White Nationalist/racialist/paleoconservative etc". And I've heard a lot of people describe themselves by a number of terms on the talk shows....but never as, simply, White Men and Women. Maybe the time has come to seize this semantic weapon - to take the extremist label off ourselves and let the race traitors stuggle with the Uncle Tom onus (which they have so richly earned with their toadying) for a change.
2003-05-28 02:10 | User Profile
Ares --
No offense intended, but I think you have the matter backwards. We Whites are in this mess BECAUSE we sat on our asses and said nothing since about 1950, or, at most, played nice-and-friendly like Susie Cheerleader at Central High.
Playing nice-and-polite gets you nowhere. Jews hope like Hell that all WNs become wimpy Buchananites who only mention, uhh, "Likkudniks" every other month. Fat chance. I play for real.
2003-05-28 03:01 | User Profile
So the FBI has named all of the Media-approved White organizations "terrorists"?? They're just as rational as Shrub.
Let's see PETA and JDL make the list next week, and if this were the late 60's-early 70's, the Black Panthers and the Weathermen.
2003-05-28 03:08 | User Profile
Here is a set of simple truths too dangerous in Amerikwa:
White is beautiful
Whites are cool
Whites are smart
Whites prefer the company of other whites
Whites want to live among whites
Sense of community is very valuable and it has almost dissapeared among whites because they don't have communities any longer
Divershity and multiculti are weaknesses
Jews aren't victims but predators
The more whites the better the country
Cheap labor is a throwback to old times of serfs and slaves
etc. etc.
Do many Americans teach that their kids?
2003-05-28 07:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ares@May 28 2003, 02:18 **Also, I have just seen some swastikas in this forum.ÃÂ I hope Original Dissent does not turn into another Stormfront.ÃÂ **
Thank you Ares for your comments.
I'll go on record here as saying that I see no reason for myself or anyone here to publicly denounce Stormfront or distance OD from it without provocation. As far as I know, no one in a management capacity at Stormfront has attacked OD. Rather to the contrary, Stormfront has maintained a recommended link to OD for quite some time now.
I certainly don't think the two sites share identical purposes or clientele, but there has been no ill will between OD and Stormfront that I am aware of and again, I see no reason to create any.
Of course I do frown on any obnoxious, Hollywood-Nazi type of avatars, pictures and links here. These things I feel only distract from heightened debate and commentary and are more often than not put-up by likely provacateurs.
Does that sound too much like a politician? :)
2003-05-28 12:35 | User Profile
Originally posted by madrussian@May 28 2003, 03:08 ** Do many Americans teach that their kids? **
This American does.
Walter
2003-05-28 12:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@May 28 2003, 07:32 ** > Originally posted by Ares@May 28 2003, 02:18 **Also, I have just seen some swastikas in this forum.ÃÂ I hope Original Dissent does not turn into another Stormfront.ÃÂ **
Thank you Ares for your comments.
I'll go on record here as saying that I see no reason for myself or anyone here to publicly denounce Stormfront or distance OD from it without provocation. As far as I know, no one in a management capacity at Stormfront has attacked OD. Rather to the contrary, Stormfront has maintained a recommended link to OD for quite some time now.
I certainly don't think the two sites share identical purposes or clientele, but there has been no ill will between OD and Stormfront that I am aware of and again, I see no reason to create any.
Of course I do frown on any obnoxious, Hollywood-Nazi type of avatars, pictures and links here. These things I feel only distract from heightened debate and commentary and are more often than not put-up by likely provacateurs.
Does that sound too much like a politician? :) **
I think that you're doing a great job of balancing these things, OD.
Speaking only for myself, I find Nazism to be an intellectual ZERO, a moral pariah and a political dead-end.
The future of our movement is in a revitalized Christianity, complete with traditional teachings on morality, nationality, and economic justice.
I'd like to see OD identify more strongly with this traditionalist tendency.
Walter
2003-05-28 13:12 | User Profile
Ares: "The Patriotic Conservatives of America" and under this image pointed out the evil of Jews and criminality of Blacks. We would blend right into the mainstream, the Jews would hate it! The Jews WANT White Nationalists to look like extremist freaks so that no one will join
Like poor old Jim Moran was mainstream?! You do NOT have to look even slightly 'extreme' to be tarred and feathered! He didn't even point out the evil of jews... he was being NICE to them and acknowledging their power and they still destroyed him. (Anyone remember Trent Lott? Cynthia McKinney?) You canNOT win against this enemy by placating them, trying to place nice so they don't hurt you!
You're making the usual white mistake of assuming your enemies are rational, honorable (or barely truthful anyway), and can be actually worked with. And they cannot! Parasites DESTROY! They don't negotiate!
**Surely no average White Christian person is going to trust or even take seriously such an organization. ** And thus, those "average White Christians" will continue to be suborned, managed, used, and destroyed. (and to destroy their own societies blindly!)
2003-05-28 13:39 | User Profile
Well said Avalanche. :th:
2003-05-28 18:15 | User Profile
There is very little to do, of course, other than continuing to be as subtle and diplomatic as we already are. I agree; affiliation with neo-Nazis, etc... will get us nowhere-what we want to be is mainstream. VDARE is a good model in this regard. Of course, considering the fact that the law enforcement policy is now "you prosecute what (whom) you can prosecute", and the definition of "terorist" is now so malleable that it is pretty much completely arbitrary, one cna never be too sure that he is safe...
I am moving out of the US as soon as I finish my education. That's my solution.
2003-05-28 18:38 | User Profile
**Parasites DESTROY! They don't negotiate! **
What she said.
2003-05-28 18:54 | User Profile
Instead of distancing yourselves from things like SF, some of you intellectuals should give them the benefit of your knowledge. If you really want to get your message out to the next generation you might even work on ways of making your material more palatable to wandering white kids. You'll also be improving the complexion of an invaluable resource, making it more intellectually respectable (as opposed to Jewishly respectable).
Tex, I'm not trying to run these people away from here. This is the best home base in existence, as they know.
2003-05-28 19:18 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ruffin@May 28 2003, 12:54 ** Instead of distancing yourselves from things like SF, some of you intellectuals should give them the benefit of your knowledge. If you really want to get your message out to the next generation you might even work on ways of making your material more palatable to wandering white kids. You'll also be improving the complexion of an invaluable resource, making it more intellectually respectable (as opposed to Jewishly respectable).
Tex, I'm not trying to run these people away from here. This is the best home base in existence, as they know. **
Unfortunately, paranoia and hostility abound at sites like SF. The NA, KKK, Skinhead crowd really make me laugh. They speak of a "mass movement" that is formenting, but then any White Nationalist who questions their bizarre orthodoxy is accused of being:
1) A Jew 2) A federal agent 3) A Jewish federal agent
These folks seem to relish in engaging in violent fantasies, engaging in horribly depressing, negative thinking, and maintaining delusions that they are a powerful social movement. Even though I don't associate with these types, is still sad to see a group of people who are committed to an ideology yet are completely incapable of recruiting ANY new members to their cause.
In case you haven't noticed, its the same ten or twelve guys posting at SF. These guys were also there 5 years ago.
They are also way to into the NA. The NA is a pack of real disturbos. Flame away.
-Tom
2003-05-28 20:05 | User Profile
Methinks you are being pessimistic, Walter. What would we do without threads like [url=http://www.stormfront.org/forum/threadid70919.php]this[/url] and [url=http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70433&perpage=15&pagenumber=1]this[/url]?
Seriously, I think some parts of SF are decent while some threads make me want to completely ignore it. When I see people who claim that anyone who has one drop of non-White ancestry are "muds", I want to ignore it. Third-world immigrants are pouring into North America and Europe, and these people somehow think that we can afford to be more genetically puritan in our ranks than the NSDP.
2003-05-28 20:13 | User Profile
Originally posted by Edana@May 28 2003, 14:05 ** Methinks you are being pessimistic, Walter. What would we do without threads like [url=http://www.stormfront.org/forum/threadid70919.php]this[/url] and [url=http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70433&perpage=15&pagenumber=1]this[/url]?
Seriously, I think some parts of SF are decent while some threads make me want to completely ignore it. When I see people who claim that anyone who has one drop of non-White ancestry are "muds", I want to ignore it. Third-world immigrants are pouring into North America and Europe, and these people somehow think that we can afford to be more genetically puritan in our ranks than the NSDP. **
You raise salient points. I really, really, hate crude biological racists who like to play the role of "racial hygenist".
All I know is that every time I have disagreed with a mod over there, my posts have been deleted.
Additionally, I refuse to associate with people who think that Kevin Strom, Matt Hale, and Tom Metzger are "great leaders". These guys are mentally disturbed clowns.
You are a jackass if when you are asked about great White men, instead of thinking of Charles Martel, George Washington, Teddy Roosavelt, Bismark...you think of a sawed of little weirdo who hides out in a compound in WV, an overweight TV repairman, and a nutjob who lives in his Dad's basement and thinks everyday is Halloween. Just my .02
2003-05-29 00:05 | User Profile
I agree with your .02, though I give young people a great deal of leeway - and a huge bulk of SF posters are young people.
Many young people nowadays, if asked about Great White Men, would give you Eminem or some Hollywood celebrity.
Things have gotten very bad. :thd:
2003-05-29 06:43 | User Profile
You're making the usual white mistake of assuming your enemies are rational, honorable (or barely truthful anyway), and can be actually worked with. And they cannot! Parasites DESTROY! They don't negotiate!
Rational White Person: I sometimes think that, well, maybe--just maybe--Israel has too much influence on the US Government. Anyway that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Jew: Anti-Semite! Oy Vey! It's Kristallnacht all over again! Call the ADL!
RWP: According to the FBI's crime statistics, African-American males commit a disproportionate number of crimes. Of course, we have to take into account the brutal poverty that most African-Americans live under, as well as the institionalized racism rampant in our society.
Black: Why you filty racist cracker! Help! I'm the victim of a hate crime! I'm calling the NAACP! Where's Rev. Al?!? Where's Jesse?!?
RWP: I think that maybe we need to tighten up our border security a little bit; and not just our southern border, but our northern border as well.
Hispanic: You damn racist gringo! Who are you to decide who can come to America! Your ancestors were immigrants too! I'm calling The Council Of La Raza!
Moral: you can never please a non-White. No matter how hard you try, they will always hate you.
--
Additionally, I refuse to associate with people who think that Kevin Strom, Matt Hale, and Tom Metzger are "great leaders".ÃÂ These guys are mentally disturbed clowns.
That sounds like something a freeper might say. All you forgot was the reference to "tin foil hats." I don't know why you're trashing Stormfront so much. I've read some good stuff over there, though a lot of the posts I see there are "So what's your fave WP Band?" Anyway, here are my capsule reviews of the main boards:
FreeRepublic: GWB is God! The Clintons are evil! Immigration rules! Israel is our best friend! Paleocons, like Buchanan, are Nazis!
Libertypost: More or less FreeRepublic II, just with less GWB worship.
Libertyforum: Mostly Liberatians like Mr. Nuke Buzzcutt, talking about how "cool" they are; the rest is divided between endless articles about the Middle East and those evil Zionists, mostly posted by Islamicists posing as WNs (I personally wish the Israelis and Arabs would wipe each other out; good riddance to non-White rubbish, say I), or thoughtcriminal and kosciusko talking about how Slavs are "the master race."
Stormfront: Some good VNN-style commentary, but too much talk about WP music.
Original Dissent is, imo, the best of the lot. I just hope it stays that way, and doesn't get "freeperized."
--
The Road to Freeperdom starts out small...
First, you denounce certain people, like Kevin A. Strom, Matt Hale, Tom Metzger, Alex Linder, etc. as extremist wackos. Then, before you know it, we'll be seeing posts like these:
"I think African-Americans just need a stable homelife, and equal access to the education Whites take for granted, and they'll be just as good citizens as Whites."
"I know lots of Mexicans, and they are fine, hard-working folks. In fact, I like them a lot better than many Whites I know. Too bad we couldn't trade our bad Whites for some Mexicans."
"I think that Race is really a state of mind, not something physical. I have some Jewish and Indian friends who are sympathetic to the WN movement, and would make great members. In fact, I'd actually prefer them to some of our White members."
"I'm no fan of GW Bush, but do we really want a Democrat in the White House? I'm voting for Bush in 2004."
"We need immigrants to do the jobs Americans won't do. I mean, who's going to mow your lawn?"
"Israel is our best ally in the Middle East--perhaps in the entire world!"
"The Jewish people have suffered so much throughout history, yet they have contributed so much. Why do some people hate them so? They are God's Chosen, after all."
"Slavery was the greatest crime in our country's history, and it is time we answered for it. That's why I support reparations."
"God Bless President Bush!"
--
So, let's not be too hasty in condemning those so-called extremists. They just might end up saving the Race. To paraphrase the jew Goldwater, "Extermism in the defense of the White Race is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of White Nationalism is no virtue!"
2003-05-29 06:54 | User Profile
Originally posted by Kurt@May 29 2003, 00:43 ** > You're making the usual white mistake of assuming your enemies are rational, honorable (or barely truthful anyway), and can be actually worked with. And they cannot! Parasites DESTROY! They don't negotiate!
Rational White Person: I sometimes think that, well, maybe--just maybe--Israel has too much influence on the US Government. Anyway that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Jew: Anti-Semite! Oy Vey! It's Kristallnacht all over again! Call the ADL!
RWP: According to the FBI's crime statistics, African-American males commit a disproportionate number of crimes. Of course, we have to take into account the brutal poverty that most African-Americans live under, as well as the institionalized racism rampamt in our society.
Black: Why you filty racist cracker! Help! I'm the victim of a hate crime! I'm calling the NAACP! Where's Rev. Al?!? Where's Jesse?!?
RWP: I think that maybe we need to tighten up our border security a little bit; and not just our southern border, but our northern border as well.
Hispanic: You damn racist gringo! Who are you to decide who can come to America! Your ancestors were immigrants too! I'm calling The Council Of La Raza!
Moral: you can never please a non-White. No matter how hard you try, they will always hate you.
--
Additionally, I refuse to associate with people who think that Kevin Strom, Matt Hale, and Tom Metzger are "great leaders".ÃÂ These guys are mentally disturbed clowns.
That sounds like something a freeper might say. All you forgot was the reference to "tin foil hats." **
Oh yeah...I forgot. Guys who dress up in Third Reich regalia, praise pedophile serial killers like Joseph Paul Franklin (e.g. William Pierce's "hunter"), start up anti-Christian bizarro cults (Hale), and call for a National Socialist revolution in 21st century America (Strom) are helping out White people tremendously.
These yahoos are not going to "save the White race"...what they do is marginalize legitimate grievances that White people have.
2003-05-29 07:57 | User Profile
**These yahoos are not going to "save the White race"...what they do is marginalize legitimate grievances that White people have. **
The problem is that, according to non-Whites, Whites don't have any "legitimate grievances." We're all evil racists who should hang our heads in shame forever and ever amen. No matter how we present ourselves they will always hate us in some way.
2003-05-29 08:19 | User Profile
Sweepingly dismissing Hale & Strom in the same sentence is terribly simplistic. Hale's approach comes off as looneytunes to me, but Strom is one of the most articulate and persuasive spokesmen for the WN viewpoint.
But no approach that doesn't reach out to, and connect with, white youth is going to bear fruit. And that which appeals to youth is inevitably found wanting (or fundamentally unserious) to the older generation. Just the way it is.
2003-05-29 10:59 | User Profile
[url=http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71164]Stormfront on neo-cons[/url]. I see little difference between OD and Stormfront here. If you simply ignore the bull threads the pattern repeats. The statements made and conclusions drawn in an intelligent Stormfront thread are much the same as an average OD thread.
That said a direct comparison Original Dissent and Stormfront is not a comparison of like with like. OD is essentially a political discussion group while SF is a community forum. A certain level of inanity is to be expected on community forums and Stormfront is no better or no worse in this regard.
2003-05-29 12:35 | User Profile
In case you haven't noticed, its the same ten or twelve guys posting at SF. These guys were also there 5 years ago.
This isn't the first time I've heard this. But SF's Alexas dwarf ours, as do their registration and thread totals:
Registered Members: 15,409 Total Threads: 62,154 | Total Posts: 447,786
The last time I checked, enacting any change in the System is a pipe-dream without numbers. Stormfront has impressive ones.
2003-05-29 17:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@May 29 2003, 02:19 ** Sweepingly dismissing Hale & Strom in the same sentence is terribly simplistic. Hale's approach comes off as looneytunes to me, but Strom is one of the most articulate and persuasive spokesmen for the WN viewpoint.
But no approach that doesn't reach out to, and connect with, white youth is going to bear fruit. And that which appeals to youth is inevitably found wanting (or fundamentally unserious) to the older generation. Just the way it is. **
Strom is a smart guy...I don't deny that. However, the NA is a paranoid fringe organization that attracts a great deal of violent riff raff. I also find thier message to be perverse. Let's face it, the patron saint of the NA (William Pierce) was as crazy as a shithouse rat. There is no future in an organization like this. Its just damaging to our cause. I know that the following fact makes Franco very sad, but there is not going to be a National Socialist revolution in America. Nor would reasonable people want there to be one.
I'm a Paleoconservative because I want to restore the Constitution and the values of the Old Republic. The only good thing that I feel came out of the Third Reich was the Pan-Europeanism of the Waffen SS. This never came to fruition, though...as the Waffen was just beginning to reach its zenith on the Day of Defeat.
-Tom
2003-05-29 19:36 | User Profile
** Walter Kurtz wrote:
Let's face it, the patron saint of the NA (William Pierce) was as crazy as a shithouse rat. **
No, that is not true. Pierce actually had a good ability to send out a consistent message, in a common-man's language. Notice how each ADV broadcast was always about Jews, never Blacks or homosexuals? There is a reason for that. The Jew is the taproot of our troubles. In fact, it was Pierce who woke me up and made me realize that very vital fact.
Since Dr. K. MacDonald has noted that the only ideology that can truly counter Judaism/Jews is Nazism [and not the Klan], your gloating over the probable fact that there will never be a Nazi revolution in America is troubling.
2003-05-29 19:50 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@May 29 2003, 13:36 ** > ** Walter Kurtz wrote:
Let's face it, the patron saint of the NA (William Pierce) was as crazy as a shithouse rat. **
No, that is not true. Pierce actually had a good ability to send out a consistent message, in a common-man's language. Notice how each ADV broadcast was always about Jews, never Blacks or homosexuals? There is a reason for that. The Jew is the taproot of our troubles. In fact, it was Pierce who woke me up and made me realize that very vital fact.
Since Dr. K. MacDonald has noted that the only ideology that can truly counter Judaism/Jews is Nazism [and not the Klan], your gloating over the probable fact that there will never be a Nazi revolution in America is troubling. **
A Nazi revolution can't happen in America. You know a great deal about National Socialism...so I am sure you know that the necessary dynamics are not present.
K. McDonald is a very brilliant man in some ways...but he is wrong if he thinks that National Socialism is the only way to combat culture distortion.
Pierce was nuts, Franco...they guy called Joseph Franklin and Rob Matthews "true sons of their race". These guys were a couple of sociopaths...they are not people to emulate.
What will save the West from the culture distorters is a pan-Aryan cultural revival...I don't know what the necessary catalyst is for this to occur.
One thing that was consistently adressed by Yockey, was the fact that pure National Socialism is obsolete. The pan-Aryanism of the Waffen SS had great potential. Evola recognized this...as did the ELF. But they both dropped the ball...they were essentially bought off by the Dulles brothers and the Truman administration during a critical moment in history. Had this not happened, things may have been different...
2003-05-29 23:37 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter E Kurtz@May 29 2003, 12:55 ** I'm a Paleoconservative because I want to restore the Constitution and the values of the Old Republic. **
Great to have you here, Tom. Tell a like-minded friend or two.
:th:
2003-05-30 00:00 | User Profile
** Walter Kurtz wrote:
I'm a Paleoconservative because I want to restore the Constitution and the values of the Old Republic. **
Talk about an idea that won't happen.
Negroes and Jews and women are now U.S. federal judges and Congressmen, oops, uhh, -persons. Mrs. Susie Creamcheese can vote. Brown bipeds are flooding into Amerika and having 10 babies per family. And you still think that we will restore the Constitution with those people now calling the shots and/or becoming voting "Americans??" Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!
:hit:
2003-05-30 00:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@May 29 2003, 18:00 ** > ** Walter Kurtz wrote:
I'm a Paleoconservative because I want to restore the Constitution and the values of the Old Republic. **
Talk about an idea that won't happen.
Negroes and Jews and women are now U.S. federal judges and Congressmen, oops, uhh, -persons. Mrs. Susie Creamcheese can vote. Brown bipeds are flooding into Amerika and having 10 babies per family. And you still think that we will restore the Constitution with those people now calling the shots and/or becoming voting "Americans??" Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!
:hit: **
Well, let me just say that a Constitutional restoration is a hell of a lot more likely to occur than a National Socialist revolution.
But what can I say...when I get old (I'm still a young buck) I guess I'll just be a "canny" Paleo who spends his days reading stuffy manifestos to his buddies inside of a country club dining room. :sleep:
2003-05-30 00:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@May 29 2003, 08:35 > In case you haven't noticed, its the same ten or twelve guys posting at SF. These guys were also there 5 years ago.**
This isn't the first time I've heard this. But SF's Alexas dwarf ours, as do their registration and thread totals:
Registered Members: 15,409 Total Threads: 62,154 | Total Posts: 447,786
The last time I checked, enacting any change in the System is a pipe-dream without numbers. Stormfront has impressive ones.**
In the interests of accuracy, and not to take anything away from your observation, I should point out that some of Stormfront's registration total is composed of "anti-racists" who come to debate the regulars there and are only allowed to post on that board under the "General Rants" section.
2003-05-30 01:46 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@May 27 2003, 19:34 ** We're making it too easy for the quislings to play to the cheap seats and theatrically declaim, "I am not - and will never be - a White Nationalist/racialist/paleoconservative etc". **
Quisling was one of the good guys you know.
2003-05-30 07:05 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter E Kurtz@May 29 2003, 19:50 ** Since Dr. K. MacDonald has noted that the only ideology that can truly counter Judaism/Jews is Nazism [and not the Klan], your gloating over the probable fact that there will never be a Nazi revolution in America is troubling.
K. McDonald is a very brilliant man in some ways...but he is wrong if he thinks that National Socialism is the only way to combat culture distortion.
**
Could you please direct me to where Kevin MacDonald suggests that Nazism is a good choice for white nationalism in America? I wasn't aware of this.
**What will save the West from the culture distorters is a pan-Aryan cultural revival...I don't know what the necessary catalyst is for this to occur. **
I agree with you about Nazi ideology. As our friend NeoNietzsche admitted on another thread, the Nazi war god is a loser, and thus if for no other reason affiliation with the Nazi god of war is a losing proposition. And I for one want to win - glorious defeat doesn't interest me at all. Christianity is stronger than Nazism - the merest glance at history proves this, and thus for even the most basic practical reasons we WN's should reject Nazism utterly and embrace fully the Church Triumphant as the surest way to victory.
As Belloc wrote, the Faith is Christendom, and Christendom is the Faith. Our best hope is to rediscover the anti-Pharisaical roots of Christ and His Church, and not waste our time with intellectual, spiritual, and historical non-entities such as Nazism.
Walter
2003-05-30 07:46 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@May 30 2003, 07:05 > Originally posted by Walter E Kurtz@May 29 2003, 19:50 ** Since Dr. K. MacDonald has noted that the only ideology that can truly counter Judaism/Jews is Nazism [and not the Klan], your gloating over the probable fact that there will never be a Nazi revolution in America is troubling.
K. McDonald is a very brilliant man in some ways...but he is wrong if he thinks that National Socialism is the only way to combat culture distortion.
**
Could you please direct me to where Kevin MacDonald suggests that Nazism is a good choice for white nationalism in America? I wasn't aware of this.
**
Well here is MacDonald's predictions in his own words. You can judge for yourselves.
**The present tendencies lead one to predict that unless the ideology of individualism is abandoned not only by the multicultural minorities (who have been encouraged to pursue their group interests by a generation of American intellectuals) but also by the European-derived peoples of Europe, North America, New Zealand, and Australia, the end result will be a substantial diminution of the genetic, political, and cultural influence of these peoples. It would be an unprecedented unilateral abdication of such power and certainly an evolutionist would expect no such abdication without at least a phase of resistance by a significant segment of the population. As indicated above, European-derived peoples are expected to ultimately exhibit some of the great flexibility that Jews have shown throughout the ages in advocating particular political forms that best suit their current interests. The prediction is that segments of the European-derived peoples of the world will eventually realize that they have been ill-served and are being ill-served both by the ideology of multiculturalism and by the ideology of deethnicized individualism.
If the analysis of anti-Semitism presented in SAID is correct, the expected reaction will emulate aspects of Judaism by adopting group-serving, collectivist ideologies and social organizations. The theoretically underdetermined nature of human group processes (PTSDA, Ch. 1; MacDonald 1995b) disallows detailed prediction of whether the reactive strategy will be sufficient to stabilize or reverse the present decline of European peoples in the New World and, indeed, in their ancestral homelands; whether the process will degenerate into a selfdestructive reactionary movement as occurred with the Spanish Inquisition; or whether it will initiate a moderate and permanent turning away from radical individualism toward a sustainable group strategy. What is certain is that the ancient dialectic between Judaism and the West will continue into the foreseeable future. It will be ironic that, whatever anti-Semitic rhetoric may be adopted by the leaders of these defensive movements, they will be constrained to emulate key elements of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. Such strategic mimicry will, once again, lead to a "Judaization" of Western societies not only in the sense that their social organization will become more group-oriented but also in the sense that they will be more aware of themselves as a positively evaluated ingroup and more aware of other human groups as competing, negatively evaluated outgroups. In this sense, whether the decline of the European peoples continues unabated or is arrested, it will constitute a profound impact of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy on the development of Western societies. (Culture of Critique, Final Chapter)**
He is being the social scientist/philosopher, not the political advocate. It is true that among the "defensive movements" comprising a "turning away from radical individualism toward a sustainable group strategy" in so doing emulating "key elements of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy" through "group-serving, collectivist ideologies and social organizations"he has specifically mentioned National Socialism in SAID, but this certainly isn't the only example in his books of such generalized cultural reactions to subversive group strategies such as Judaism.
2003-05-30 17:44 | User Profile
**Quisling was one of the good guys you know. **
Sure, but try telling that to Webster.
2003-05-30 20:27 | User Profile
What in the heck does he have to do with anything?
[img]http://www.sitcomsonline.com/840114.jpg[/img]
I know, I'm sure you saw that one coming... ba dum dum
Well, let me just say that a Constitutional restoration is a hell of a lot more likely to occur than a National Socialist revolution.
Agreed. But neither is likely to occur in the multicultural cesspool the U.S. has become. The only chance at a remotely peaceful solution is to voluntarily separate into ethnic states, and what are the chances of that? ZOG ain't gonna allow any such thing. Of course, what with the piggy bank down to its last few nickels, it may not be able to prevent it.
2003-05-30 21:44 | User Profile
** Walter Yannis wrote:
Our best hope is to rediscover the anti-Pharisaical roots of Christ and His Church, and not waste our time with intellectual, spiritual, and historical non-entities such as Nazism. **
Since only 3 out of 10 Christians are "anti-Semitic," and since that number will not change any time soon, maybe Walter will explain how the JudenVarmint will be successfully opposed if we adopt Walter's plan?
Face facts, Walter -- we need Nazism to successfully and permanently counter ZhidNation. The only problem with the original Nazis is that they were too little, too late. Let's not make the same mistake.
:sm:
2003-05-30 22:46 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@May 30 2003, 15:44 ** > ** Walter Yannis wrote:
Our best hope is to rediscover the anti-Pharisaical roots of Christ and His Church, and not waste our time with intellectual, spiritual, and historical non-entities such as Nazism. **
Since only 3 out of 10 Christians are "anti-Semitic," and since that number will not change any time soon, maybe Walter will explain how the JudenVarmint will be successfully opposed if we adopt Walter's plan?
Face facts, Walter -- we need Nazism to successfully and permanently counter ZhidNation. The only problem with the original Nazis is that they were too little, too late. Let's not make the same mistake.
:sm: **
Franco:
I want you to explain to me how a Nazi revolution could occur in 21st century America.
2003-05-31 02:19 | User Profile
from wbw i too miss vidkun... he got a bum rap... the free french also got too much nice press. they were commies and often leftovers from the spanish repubs...
freedom aint free. it also aint neat. the 2nd amendment has been sorely underused for its intended purpose.
the easiest thing to do, short of joining a group that may just get locked up... is to keep bitching at the vulnerable members of the political class. after that someone needs to start running for office.
fear of violent books? who tf cares... people buy books full of violence every day. the verboten issue is who the victim apparently is... keep the $ flowing...
2003-05-31 02:57 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@May 30 2003, 15:44 **
Face facts, Walter -- we need Nazism to successfully and permanently counter ZhidNation. The only problem with the original Nazis is that they were too little, too late. Let's not make the same mistake.
:sm: **
I will post this reply in "Francospeak":
Fwanco, Itz not coming to Amerikwa. :o
2003-05-31 02:58 | User Profile
In the end, I think the best strategy is to simply remain very civil and subtle and to disassociate one self from all fringe groups.
2003-05-31 03:04 | User Profile
Originally posted by Prodigal Son@May 30 2003, 22:58 ** In the end, I think the best strategy is to simply remain very civil and subtle and to disassociate one self from all fringe groups. **
Civil, sure, for now. I agree that the rule should always be to let ZOG up the ante and make the first move. Civil and legal is good. Subtle...not so sure what that means, and I worry that subtlety is lost on a lot of people. Subtlety lets the sleeper continue to sleep soundly. As far as distancing from the "fringe," the question is who defines "fringe?" The Jewsmedia considers OD to be part of the "fringe." Anything to the right of Rush Limbaugh is considered "fringe" by the mainstream.
2003-05-31 03:22 | User Profile
Is anyone using the terms ZOG or jewsmedia a part of the fringe? :(
2003-05-31 03:37 | User Profile
Originally posted by madrussian@May 30 2003, 23:22 Is anyone using the terms ZOG or jewsmedia a part of the fringe? :(
:lol: Yes, those are "fringe" terms that I actually used to try to avoid in the past, just because they seem scary to the uninitiated. But after a while I just thought, "oh well, what the hell," and now I just use them. I also used to only use the word "Black," but now I'm willing to write "Negro," since it's merely an older term and not the more unprofessional/crude "N word." The closest I ever come to using that word in public, private, or on the Internet is "nigs," which I bring into service once in a while since it's an entertaining shortened version that I found out my dead Irish grandmother used to use in conversation.
2003-05-31 03:45 | User Profile
The funny times we are living in, I used to laugh at those terms, but they ring more and more true with every day. My first encounter with the word ZOG in its Russian translation was in the 80s when a local activist of Pamyat was conducting regular weekly meetings with whoever felt like debating him outside a movie theater in Akademgorodok. At that time, anyone who'd use that acronym would become fringe instantly in my view.
2003-05-31 03:47 | User Profile
i try to be unfailingly polite except when i am in semi-private or private situations with white people who i think should know better than they talk.
one of my co-workers actually came up to me (after i replied with a LOT of french history to one of his hate-the-french emails) and started all this 'they tried to eliminate a race' crap.
they didnt. couldnt if they tried. no proof. grow up and believe in better fairy tales.
nazism reacted to communism. and WWI.
communism, like garden variety socialism and liberalism, is anti-white (like dont u care or know u bleeding idjit descended from romanians!) to the core!
read more, especially 'banned sources', and dont lecture me.
2003-05-31 23:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@May 30 2003, 21:04 ** ...
Subtle...not so sure what that means, and I worry that subtlety is lost on a lot of people. Subtlety lets the sleeper continue to sleep soundly.**
By subtle, I mean "polite". And as much as I hate to admit it, one must use "PC" vocabulary. Instead of race, try saying "ethnicity". Instead of saying that you are a racialist, say you are a nationalist, etc... No ethic slurrs (at least not in "polite company"), no insults-simply the facts, delivered in a convincing and well paced manner. To convicne people of the truthfullness of your position, you must first get them to give you enough credibility to consider listening. Unfortunately, most people simply dismiss WNs/Paleos right off the bat.
** As far as distancing from the "fringe," the question is who defines "fringe?" The Jewsmedia considers OD to be part of the "fringe." Anything to the right of Rush Limbaugh is considered "fringe" by the mainstream.**
In my opinion, the fringe includes anyone who openly advocates genocide and/or pre-emptive violence-the kind of low-life Noodle-nazis who are currently getting a big black one in prison for assault or "hate-crime" charges and give every race conscious white a bad name.
2003-06-01 01:47 | User Profile
Originally posted by Prodigal Son@May 31 2003, 17:28 In my opinion, the fringe includes anyone who openly advocates genocide and/or pre-emptive violence-the kind of low-life Noodle-nazis who are currently getting a big black one in prison for assault or "hate-crime" charges and give every race conscious white a bad name.
Man, you really do have it in for the lower class whites. There really isn't a larger insult than what you say here. I think the proper response to black on white prison rape is unmitigated anger, not cute allusions to it to sparkle up your forum post. You know it is possible to go to prison for a hate crime and be guilty of nothing more than standing up for yourself. Imagine a situation where you are hassled by two or three young black punks, maybe they bounce a piece of fruit off your head, and the thing escalates into a fight. Furthermore say in the process of the street hassle you say the n-word, and then you get a judge that is Jewish, off you go. Maybe you think blacks are so all powerful in prison that they rape any white they want. Don't think this way if you go to prison. First of all it is not true. And second of all, it will set you up for a self-fullfilling prophecy. Anyway, whatever you may dislike about the style of lumpen white revolt, they don't deserve to be talked about this way. :thd:
2003-06-01 02:22 | User Profile
Originally posted by Bardamu@May 31 2003, 19:47 ** > Originally posted by Prodigal Son@May 31 2003, 17:28 In my opinion, the fringe includes anyone who openly advocates genocide and/or pre-emptive violence-the kind of low-life Noodle-nazis who are currently getting a big black one in prison for assault or "hate-crime" charges and give every race conscious white a bad name.
Man, you really do have it in for the lower class whites. There really isn't a larger insult than what you say here. I think the proper response to black on white prison rape is unmitigated anger, not cute allusions to it to sparkle up your forum post. You know it is possible to go to prison for a hate crime and be guilty of nothing more than standing up for yourself. Imagine a situation where you are hassled by two or three young black punks, maybe they bounce a piece of fruit off your head, and the thing escalates into a fight. Furthermore say in the process of the street hassle you say the n-word, and then you get a judge that is Jewish, off you go. Maybe you think blacks are so all powerful in prison that they rape any white they want. Don't think this way if you go to prison. First of all it is not true. And second of all, it will set you up for a self-fullfilling prophecy. Anyway, whatever you may dislike about the style of lumpen white revolt, they don't deserve to be talked about this way. :thd: **
I am sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention. My experience with the "fringe" group of white nationalism is limited to one friend, who is a skinhead. he is only 18, but he's already been to jail 3 times for assault (once he assaulted a security guard with a baseball bat-every single time he was guilty, by his own admission). He has a drinking problem. He failed high school. In short he embodies everything that Joe Sixpack and Sally Soccermom think of when they think of a "white supremist". I strongly disapprove of his actions and the group that he is affiliated with-not only is he ruining his own life, but with every petty offense he commits, he drags the credibility of the WN movement even lower. I am sorry if I offended anyone with my other post, but I want to make it clear that I do not approve of violent skinheads, and other such "brown shirt" militia movements.
2003-06-02 08:37 | User Profile
Anybody familiar with these guys:
[url=http://www.minutemenofamerica.com/]http://www.minutemenofamerica.com/[/url]
2003-06-02 12:42 | User Profile
Originally posted by Prodigal Son@May 31 2003, 20:22 > Originally posted by Bardamu@May 31 2003, 19:47 ** > Originally posted by Prodigal Son@May 31 2003, 17:28 In my opinion, the fringe includes anyone who openly advocates genocide and/or pre-emptive violence-the kind of low-life Noodle-nazis who are currently getting a big black one in prison for assault or "hate-crime" charges and give every race conscious white a bad name.**
Man, you really do have it in for the lower class whites. There really isn't a larger insult than what you say here. I think the proper response to black on white prison rape is unmitigated anger, not cute allusions to it to sparkle up your forum post. You know it is possible to go to prison for a hate crime and be guilty of nothing more than standing up for yourself. Imagine a situation where you are hassled by two or three young black punks, maybe they bounce a piece of fruit off your head, and the thing escalates into a fight. Furthermore say in the process of the street hassle you say the n-word, and then you get a judge that is Jewish, off you go. Maybe you think blacks are so all powerful in prison that they rape any white they want. Don't think this way if you go to prison. First of all it is not true. And second of all, it will set you up for a self-fullfilling prophecy. Anyway, whatever you may dislike about the style of lumpen white revolt, they don't deserve to be talked about this way. :thd: **
I am sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention. My experience with the "fringe" group of white nationalism is limited to one friend, who is a skinhead. he is only 18, but he's already been to jail 3 times for assault (once he assaulted a security guard with a baseball bat-every single time he was guilty, by his own admission). He has a drinking problem. He failed high school. In short he embodies everything that Joe Sixpack and Sally Soccermom think of when they think of a "white supremist". I strongly disapprove of his actions and the group that he is affiliated with-not only is he ruining his own life, but with every petty offense he commits, he drags the credibility of the WN movement even lower. I am sorry if I offended anyone with my other post, but I want to make it clear that I do not approve of violent skinheads, and other such "brown shirt" militia movements.**
No problem Prodigal Son. Maybe the WN movement should publically disavow the criminal, and just plain ignorant, elements you are describing. I know they exist and do drag down our credibility -- but I am not sure if the type you describe drag down the credibility of the entire skinhead movement. I can't say. But I do know that it is possible for a decent and honorable man under present conditions in America to go to prison for so-called hate crimes -- and that was what I meant to respond to. Like I said, no problem. :D
2003-06-02 20:22 | User Profile
So what does it come doen to? Are we going to soften/change our beliefs to appeal more to the mainstream? Or do we help the mainstream realize that they are on a destructive, dead-end path?
We have to realize that taking a too conservative approach isn't going to get us support from the younger crowd. Even if they would agree with what we have to say, what will turn away a teenager faster than finding out the "movement" he agrees with is a bunch of middle-aged men in 3-piece suits?
Not that the hardcore neo-Nazi approach is the ideal either, as it will turn away a lot of otherwise good people.
Some people want a one-size-fits-all image for us, whether we call ourselves White Nationalists (as I do) or paleoconservatives or whatever other labels we care to use. There is no such thing, and I think trying to find one is a waste of time.
2003-06-02 20:43 | User Profile
Originally posted by Rumblestrip@Jun 2 2003, 15:22 Some people want a one-size-fits-all image for us, whether we call ourselves White Nationalists (as I do) or paleoconservatives or whatever other labels we care to use. There is no such thing, and I think trying to find one is a waste of time.
Personally, I think the political/cultural organization that will be a vehicle for our ideology has not yet formed.
On good days I like to think that this board is helping shape that future organization. On bad days I wonder why I'm wasting my time, money and energy here. :)
2003-06-02 21:46 | User Profile
** Tex wrote:
On good days I like to think that this board is helping shape that future organization. On bad days I wonder why I'm wasting my time, money and energy here.**
Don't sell yourself short, Tex. You named that ideology/organization a few weeks ago -- 'right-wing populism' will attract the most people to such a movement idea as yours.
That type of populism is what Jews fear, in fact. Notice how FrontPageMag and other neocons have been attacking people like Bill White. The Joo fears a big populist movement that names him [i.e. a movement ranging from Coughlin to Long to Le Pen to Hitler to Gerald L. K. Smith and back again]. That type of movement could attract millions of people. Not Good For HymieBoy. HymieBoy loses sleep at night thinking about that. :D Oy...
[edited]
2003-06-03 00:09 | User Profile
Originally posted by Rumblestrip@Jun 2 2003, 14:22 ** So what does it come doen to? Are we going to soften/change our beliefs to appeal more to the mainstream? Or do we help the mainstream realize that they are on a destructive, dead-end path? **
We don't necessarily need to modify our core beliefs in any manner whatsoever. The biggest problems that we are currently facing, is getting people to listen. Most people, quit unfortunately, simply dismiss paleos/WNs right off the bat-this is due in part to the extrimist image that many violent skinheads give the movement. We must deliver our message in as calm, civil and reasonable matter as possible, paying lip service to PC which has become an integral paradigm of political communication in the modern world.
2003-06-03 06:14 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@May 30 2003, 21:44 ** Since only 3 out of 10 Christians are "anti-Semitic," **
I don't know where you got that one from, please cite to your source.
But assuming, arguendo, that indeed 30% of Christians are "anti-Semites", then let's do some back-of-the-envolope calculations.
There are - what? - conservatively 200 million Christians in the States. That means that there are 60 million "anti-Semites" among them.
How many Nazis are there in the States? 1,000? 10,000, max?
60 million Christians verses a few thousand Nazis. Hmmmmm . . . . Which group is a more promising base for a white, nationalist movement?
Hey, Franco, I got this bridge I want to sell you!
Franco, I say this with all respect, but the fact that you could make such a wildly implausible suggestion can only mean that (1) you're so lost in your own goose-steppoing fantasies that you can't objectively evaluate the situation (most likely), (2) you're stupid (I don't believe that, although your posts are so incredibly boring that one cannot dismiss this theory out of hand), (3) you are an ideological enemy who seeks to give us disastrous advice (least likely, I see no reason to doubt your sincerety).
Nazism is a loser ideology that was designed by a bunch of losers who lead a great nation to utter ruin. Chrstianity helped defeat Nazism, and is thus stronger and thus more worthy of emulation, judging even by your own benighted standards. Chrsitianity has the shrunken heads of Nazism and Bolshevism dangling from her belt.
I say hail victory, baby. And that means getting behind a winner, not a bunch of a-social misfits who cling to a long-degeated ideology.
Warmest regards,
Walter
2003-06-03 06:53 | User Profile
Allow me to play Devil's Advocate here...
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jun 3 2003, 00:14 **Nazism is a loser ideology that was designed by a bunch of losers who lead a great nation to utter ruin. Chrstianity helped defeat Nazism, and is thus stronger and thus more worthy of emulation, judging even by your own benighted standards. Chrsitianity has the shrunken heads of Nazism and Bolshevism dangling from her belt. ** Nazism is the only political movement in modern times to successfully free an entire White nation from the Jews. When was the last time Christianity established such a feat? 1492?
Losing a war doesn't make one a "loser" in some larger metaphysical sense, unless you feel like being consistent, and, say, plan on visiting the Alamo some time and publicly laugh at those "losers" who died there. Battles have been lost, but the war continues.
Christianity didn't defeat Nazism; the overwhelming resources of the USA, USSR, and British Empire did. How "Christian" was the FDR administration? Or Churchill (don't recall seeing him in Church that often; he must have been sleeping off another drinking bout)? How Christian was Stalin and the USSR (without which, defeating Hitler would have been impossible)?
All I see in WWII is a bunch of white, Christian nations fighting each other, all of them ruled by regimes that were to varying degrees un-Christian, a-Christian, or anti-Christian. Arguably the Nazis were the least hostile to Christianity, in the long run; Nazi Party anti-Christianity was all in the minds of a few party hot-heads who had little chance of instituting such a policy even had the Nazis "won". "Paganism" or anti-Christianity were simply not on Hitler's agenda, as he stated on numerous occasions. Whereas even back then, the Jews were beginning to gain control over the Western "democracies" and were setting the stage for their later anti-Christian policies.
I realize you are trying to bait Franco, but these facts need to be stated. Christianity is a spent force in the West (no one is worried about the return of the Inquisition, Wars of Religion, or Crusades); it is a political whore that goes along with whatever the current social fashion is. In Hitler's Germany, it for the most part went along with the regime. Today, it mouths multi-racial platitudes and does everything it can to show that it is a loyal member of ZOG. Tomorrow, if we are successful, it will "discover" that white nationalism and Christianity were compatible all along, and will sing our praises and hail the rediscovery of "orthodoxy" and the salvation of Christianity from the Judeo-Christian heretics who currently run things. Christianity is simply the "stamp of approval" that any Establishment can expect when it attains power in a Western country.
Christianity didn't defeat Communism, either. It merely survived it. Some Christians, in concert with non-believers, helped to push over the rotting carcass of Communism when they were allowed to do so by their rulers. Once again, modern Christians followed the lead of others; they did not lead.
So I do agree with you, we have to curb hostilities to Christians as such, and have the broadest possible coalition of whites, of whatever religious persuasion. But I don't agree that Nazis are "losers" or that there is something magical or all-powerful about Christianity as such (certainly not modern, post-1700 Christianity). Nazism and Nazi symbols should be avoided not because of "Christians" nor even necessarily because they are viewed as negative by the brainwashed majority of whites, but because the politics and symbolism of 1930's Germany is entirely inapplicable to 21st century America. It's time to move on. Find a new strategy that works; it may in fact have many resemblences to National Socialism as such, but it will invariably be a creature of its own time and place, and thus, not National Socialism.
2003-06-03 07:03 | User Profile
Playing Devil's Advocate again...
Originally posted by Octopod@Jun 3 2003, 00:37 ** All those great nationalist leaders were/are Christians.
Not one of them was/is atheist. **
We're getting dangerously close to playing word games. How "Christian" was Long, Le Pen, or Hitler? I accept the reality that successful rightist or nationalist figures at least made the attempt to appear conventionally religious, but many, if not most, were not terribly religious, or in some cases (Hitler, Maurras, Mussolini) closet or semi-open atheists.
I think we'd all be happy with these kinds of populist or nationalist politicians, so long as they aren't "true believers" who want to establish a theocracy or bomb the middle east to "bring on armageddon". I'll take a conventionally unreligious hypocrite who defends Christianity against Jewish ethnic "veiled attacks" against the majority, in preference to a pious, consistently religious lunatic.
2003-06-03 11:31 | User Profile
Nazism is the only political movement in modern times to successfully free an entire White nation from the Jews. When was the last time Christianity established such a feat? 1492?
The Nazis ruled just over a single decade, and in that very short time they managed to murder more white people than any other regime in history, other than the Jewish Bolsheviks. And you say that the Nazis "freed" Germany???? If by "free" you mean stamping out all legitmate dissent, then yeah, maybe.
I don't look at the world that way, and no real American does.
Losing a war doesn't make one a "loser" in some larger metaphysical sense, unless you feel like being consistent, and, say, plan on visiting the Alamo some time and publicly laugh at those "losers" who died there. Battles have been lost, but the war continues.
Losing a war makes them losers by their own, Darwinian lights. Historically speaking, that's the only sense that counts. Where are the Albigensians or the Arians? Where is Bolshevism? Dead, dead, dead. Yet Christian Orthodoxy lives and lives. There is tremendous strength here, proved by the simple fact that the Church has outlived all of its rivals (except of course the Pharisees and the Muslims, but these are truly worthy enemies in a "larger metaphysical sense" as you say, unlike the comparatively evanescent Nazis or Bolsheviks).
Also, Nazism didn't live on after their defeat in the sense that the Texas movement lived on to victory after the Alamo. The German nation rejected Nazism utterly after WWII, and frankly speaking that's the only nation that matters since Nazism was all about Germany, period. To speak of "American Nazism" or any other form is therefore patently absurd, and clearly any American who would call himself a Nazi can only be considered either a traitor to the American nation or a deluded fool. From my experience, they're usually both. Nazism was not ever a pan-white movement - rather it was always a narrow and brutish German nationalism. Nazism murdered and enslaved millions of our Eastern European brothers and sisters, and thus cannot ever be made to fit the bill as a unifying ideology for pan-Europeanism.
**Christianity didn't defeat Nazism; the overwhelming resources of the USA, USSR, and British Empire did. How "Christian" was the FDR administration? Or Churchill (don't recall seeing him in Church that often; he must have been sleeping off another drinking bout)? How Christian was Stalin and the USSR (without which, defeating Hitler would have been impossible)? **
Christianity played a big role in defeating Nazism. The American and English nations were largely Christian. The Catholic Church did everything it could to encourage Catholics to resist Nazism. Bolshevism, of course, delivered the coup de grace to the Nazis, but this only proves Nazism's comparative weakness in relation even to that failed ideology.
To compare such a short-lived historical failure like Nazism to the astonishingly vital and long-lived success of Christianity is just plain silly.
All I see in WWII is a bunch of white, Christian nations fighting each other, all of them ruled by regimes that were to varying degrees un-Christian, a-Christian, or anti-Christian. Arguably the Nazis were the least hostile to Christianity, in the long run; Nazi Party anti-Christianity was all in the minds of a few party hot-heads who had little chance of instituting such a policy even had the Nazis "won". "Paganism" or anti-Christianity were simply not on Hitler's agenda, as he stated on numerous occasions. Whereas even back then, the Jews were beginning to gain control over the Western "democracies" and were setting the stage for their later anti-Christian policies.
Hitler and his Nazis hated the Catholic Church.
The feeling was mutual.
'Nuff said.
I realize you are trying to bait Franco, but these facts need to be stated. Christianity is a spent force in the West (no one is worried about the return of the Inquisition, Wars of Religion, or Crusades); it is a political whore that goes along with whatever the current social fashion is. In Hitler's Germany, it for the most part went along with the regime. Today, it mouths multi-racial platitudes and does everything it can to show that it is a loyal member of ZOG. Tomorrow, if we are successful, it will "discover" that white nationalism and Christianity were compatible all along, and will sing our praises and hail the rediscovery of "orthodoxy" and the salvation of Christianity from the Judeo-Christian heretics who currently run things. Christianity is simply the "stamp of approval" that any Establishment can expect when it attains power in a Western country.
Nonsense. Christianity is vital and growing in the United States, Russia and elsewhere. Russian Christianity is especially virile right now, it seems to me, as it survived the Jewish Bolsheviks and is well aware that they were the architects of much of the horror visited upon Holy Mother Russia in the 20th century (the other mass murderers of Slavs being the German Nazis, may the Devil blow quicklime up their asses).
I'm reading Solzhenitsin's book (second volume) and whoa Nelly, that Christian doesn't mince words about the Semitic nature of one of his nation's great tormentors (the other, again, being the Germans). And Solzhenitsin is a world-class intellectual, an artist of historical significance, and a truly great soul. The Nazis never produced anyone to compare with him (especially in their laughable American variety), but Christianity has produced many such men and women. While the mainstream churches are indeed mealy-mouthed nanny conventions as you say, these are not the churches that are growing and producing children. The United Methodists, the Evangelical Lutherans, and the Episcopalians are indeed moribund, but the Orthodox, Mormons, Baptists, Pentacostalists, and some RC traditionalist groups are alive and growing. Any one of those forces dwarf the size and influence of the American Nazis. Talk about spent forces. Sheesh.
To repeat, Christianity certainly has its problems, but that isn't the question of the day. The question is (as you imply below) which ideology is best suited for a broad pan-European nationalist movement. Clearly the banal and brutish parochialism that was and is Naziism could never conceiveably fill that bill, and just as clearly it follows that the proponents of such a failed ideology are either stupid or malicious, or both. Usually both.
**Christianity didn't defeat Communism, either. It merely survived it. **
No proponent of Darwin could have written that.
Look ye here: To survive IS to emerge victorious. Surely you know that.
Besides, and as I said on another thread to my right honorable friend NeoNietzsche, the USSR was brought down by militant Islam in Afghanistan acting in concert with a virile Catholic Church in Poland, and of course by an arms race by a (I believe) sincerely Christian Ronald Reagan who was put in office by the emerging Christian center-right forces of the USA. It was a tag-team effort, to be sure, but the Beast was killed.
The big fight looming in the future is another showdown between the victors of the 20th century's ideological wars: Islam and Christianity in the "Clash of Civilizations," and of course the Pharisees against the entire world. The Nazis and the Communists will participate in those battles only as bits of bone and dust, for they are dead. Dead as dinosaurs. And religion - real religion - killed them both.
I hope that you can accept this. In a Darwinian sense - again in this world the only sense that counts - real religion is a winner and the mere ideologies of Nazism and Bolshevism (along with a host of other "ism's") are the losers.
If we want to win (and I do), we need to pick a winning ideology. Nazism is already a fossil. Let's get real. Let's get Christian.
Some Christians, in concert with non-believers, helped to push over the rotting carcass of Communism when they were allowed to do so by their rulers. Once again, modern Christians followed the lead of others; they did not lead.
Sheep dip. See above. The Catholic Church in Poland and Islam in Afghanistan (and in Chechnya and Central Asia) were the linchpins in the struggle. I was there, by the way. I walked through Warsaw in 1987 and saw a picture of Pope John Paul II in every window, facing out to the city in a show of defiance. Note well that it never even occurred to the Poles to place a picture of Hitler in the window, because Hitler hated and oppressed them. The Russian, Armenian and Georgian Churches played a signifant role too, I might add, all of which played big roles in bringing down Bolshevik ideology. The Armenian diaspora was very active. I was there, too. I'm an eye-witness to the whole bloody thing. I was in Yerevan just after the massacre of Sumgait. I saw Opera Square overflowing with Armenians with crosses. Note again that they weren't carrying swastikas.
Are you seeing a pattern here? I sure did.
**So I do agree with you, we have to curb hostilities to Christians as such, and have the broadest possible coalition of whites, of whatever religious persuasion. But I don't agree that Nazis are "losers" or that there is something magical or all-powerful about Christianity as such (certainly not modern, post-1700 Christianity). **
The institution of the Papacy is by far the oldest continuous institution in the world. Here it is alive, nearly 2,000 years old, in a direct line stretching back to the days of the Ceasars! Which other office can compare with it? But despite its most venerable age and many persistent problems, still the Papacy and the Church in union with Peter grows. It sends out missionaries to all parts of the world. It is vital, virile, growing, in complete opposition to the defunct ideologies of Bolshevism and Nazism that the Church had a big hand in defeating.
I fear that you mistake, my friend, the lisping Christianity of your local suburban American church with the terrifying faith that has sustained the Catholic Church through 2,000 years. As I've said on other threads, we Catholics (and Orthodox) feed on the crucified flesh of our Victim-King. We thirstily drink His Blood. We're cannibals, man. Literally. We're really, really scary people. Please don't underestimate the madness that is the Church and her faith in the Man-God. As did the Nazis and the Bolsheviks before you.
The United Methodists with their gay marriages (I want to hurl just thinking of it) and anorexic feminism are the merest pimple on the Church's hoary ass, historically speaking. The anti-Pharisaical Truth is lurking just beneath the surface, and that is about to re-assert itself, IMHO.
Inquisition? There are many, many of us that want to see exactly that - within our own Church, of course, we're all for the First Amendment. How many? Certainly at least 100 times the number of "American Nazis" (oxymoron!). I personally would love to see (metaphorical) thumbscrews on the anti-Christ directors of Georgetown University, to name just one example. For the salvation of their miserable souls, of course.
We Inquisitors are all about helping our wayward brothers see the light, you see.
And while I'm on the subject, who do you suppose taught the Bolsheviks their organizational tactics? Man, the Jesuits pioneered all the cell stuff. Mimics and losers, the bloody lot of them. You name it, Catholics have done. The good, the bad, and the indifferent. And likely as not, we invented it. So kindly get over this blather about all of us kissing and making nice. I'm not nice. The Catholic Church isn't nice. Christianity isn't nice.
Hail victory, baby.
**Nazism and Nazi symbols should be avoided not because of "Christians" nor even necessarily because they are viewed as negative by the brainwashed majority of whites, but because the politics and symbolism of 1930's Germany is entirely inapplicable to 21st century America. **
Bingo. Nazism is, in fact, utterly inapplicable to any country other than Germany, which it destroyed, and thus even the Germans as the only people in the world who could reasonably lay a claim to it will never, ever avail themselves of that loser ideology again.
It's time to move on. Find a new strategy that works; it may in fact have many resemblences to National Socialism as such, but it will invariably be a creature of its own time and place, and thus, not National Socialism.
Exactly. My point is that the Church Triumphant is our best (and indeed only) chance.
And believe me, it will happen. Screw "Itz Coming", man.
We're coming. As history has shown time and again, there's nothing quite as frightening as militant Christianity with a bone to pick. We Americans are, after all, the direct spiritual heirs of Cromwell and his Roundheads and Lincoln with the Army of Sherman, not to mention our great-grandfathers Sobieski, El Cid, Ivan IV ("The Terrible"), Vlad ("The Impaler") Dracula, and so forth.
You think Christianity is some wimpy little thing? You think that we Christians need to cease fire and make peace with others who would lead the movement?
Uh-uh, dude. Christians will dictate the terms of this thing, and all others be (quite literally) damned. I sure as hell don't feel the need to negotiate with some mental pubescent with a Nazi fantasy.
Judging from my own (not insignificant) personal experience, Nazis are (with some significant exceptions) generally failed individuals with heaps of personal problems, besides generally being economic bottom-feeders. Nazism is a lower working class thing. C'mon, guys, admit it. You're the loser adherents of a loser ideology. Not that I judge a man by the size of his wallet, but let's face it, that's generally the way it is. You have limited intellectual, social and economic capital, to say the least.
Conversely, the Traditionalist Catholics of my acquaintance are in solid families and hold very responsible positions in the professional classes. These men (and women) are profoundly connected to their communities, and they have the means to make a difference. I mean, who on Earth would bother studying Latin on their own, even in the teeth of offical disapproval on the part of the Church's American hierarchy? One Traditionalist - Mel Gibson - has done more to advance a pan-European consciousness than all of the personal failures calling themselves "American Nazis" combined. Here is a man who has the mental, social and ECONIMIC resources to thumb his nose at IP Hollywood and create virulently nationalist films that SUCCEED. What "American Nazi" can claim anything even approaching that?
The Mormons are even more of a success story, IMHO, and my hat is off to them. Those folks really can teach the rest of us some important lessons about sticking together and making it work on a local level.
End of rant.
Walter
2003-06-03 22:00 | User Profile
Originally posted by Prodigal Son@Jun 2 2003, 18:09 ** We don't necessarily need to modify our core beliefs in any manner whatsoever. The biggest problems that we are currently facing, is getting people to listen. Most people, quit unfortunately, simply dismiss paleos/WNs right off the bat-this is due in part to the extrimist image that many violent skinheads give the movement. We must deliver our message in as calm, civil and reasonable matter as possible, paying lip service to PC which has become an integral paradigm of political communication in the modern world. **
On that point I agree. We need to take a good look at how we present ourselves and our beliefs. However I sometimes get the impression that some people think we need to soften our opinions themselves, rather than how we present those opinions. Making too many compromises played a part in getting us in to this mess, and it sure isn't going to get us out.
2003-06-03 22:48 | User Profile
Yet Christian Orthodoxy lives and lives.
Walter,
I'm not being derogotory here, but I think one of the reasons that Christianity has been around for so long is that it has shown absolute willingness to conform to and bend with (and I admit, sometimes set) social mores throughout history, but in doing so, it ceases to be the Christianity that the previous generation practiced. Can we really say that modern Christianity bears any resemblance to that of Martin Luther's day? I think you may be mistaking the longevity of the institution for longevity of its precepts, which I feel have been long lost.
**Hitler and his Nazis hated the Catholic Church.
The feeling was mutual.**
The same could be said of Mussolini and the Fascists, but that didn't stop the Pope from signing a concordat with Il Duce, though.
2003-06-04 05:10 | User Profile
Originally posted by MadScienceType@Jun 3 2003, 22:48 ** **Hitler and his Nazis hated the Catholic Church.
The feeling was mutual.**
The same could be said of Mussolini and the Fascists, but that didn't stop the Pope from signing a concordat with Il Duce, though. **
Franco was a very devout Catholic.
I don't know about Il Duce, but he wasn't out to kill the Church, that's for sure.
The core of the Christian faith has remained unchanged since the beginning. It's the Apostle's Creed. Popular practice has been all over the map, but the center has always held firmly. We've gone soft, but history shows that we'll be back. We always rise again, and usually just when things seem hopeless. Belloc wrote something to the effect that the pattern has been that one generation grows so weak in the Faith that Christendom is about to be swamped, and then suddenly the children of that luke warm generation are filled with zeal for the Church. And, Belloc adds, it always happens before it's noticed. I see plenty of signs that this is happening now in the Church, which means that it's already a done deal.
We're coming out, dude. Guns a-blazing.
Walter
2003-06-04 19:44 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@Jun 2 2003, 21:46 **Don't sell yourself short, Tex. You named that ideology/organization a few weeks ago -- 'right-wing populism' will attract the most people to such a movement idea as yours.
That type of populism is what Jews fear, in fact. Notice how FrontPageMag and other neocons have been attacking people like Bill White. The Joo fears a big populist movement that names him [i.e. a movement ranging from Coughlin to Long to Le Pen to Hitler to Gerald L. K. Smith and back again]. That type of movement could attract millions of people. Not Good For HymieBoy. HymieBoy loses sleep at night thinking about that. :D Oy...
[edited]**
Right-wing populism of course has been the main target of the Frankfurt School and its supporting Jewish and liberal groups since WWII.
In the post WWII era The Authoritarian Personality became an ideological weapon against historical American populist movements, especially McCarthyism. "The people as a whole had little understanding of liberal democracy and important questions of public policy would be decided by elite's, not submitted to popular vote".
These trends are exemplified in The Politics of Unreason a volume in the Patterns of American Prejudice Series funded by the ADL and written by Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab (1970)..For Lipset and Raab, toleration of cultural and ethnic pluralism is a defining feature of democracy, so that groups that oppose cultural and ethnic pluralism are by definition extremist and anti-democraticââ¬Â¦...And finally, right-wing extremism is condemned because of its tendency to distrust institutions that intervene between the people and their direct exercise of power, another plea for the power of elite's. "Populism identifies the will of the people with justice and morality".
(Kevin MacDonald, Culture of Critique Chapter 5 - "The Frankfurt School of Social Research and the Pathologization of Gentile Group Allegiences") **
2003-06-04 20:08 | User Profile
Originally posted by Frederick William I@Jun 4 2003, 14:44 ** Right-wing populism of course has been the main target of the Frankfurt School and its supporting Jewish and liberal groups since WWII. **
So what are MacDonald's recommendations about getting such a movement/organization up and running?
2003-06-04 20:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jun 4 2003, 20:08 > Originally posted by Frederick William I@Jun 4 2003, 14:44 ** Right-wing populism of course has been the main target of the Frankfurt School and its supporting Jewish and liberal groups since WWII. ** So what are MacDonald's recommendations about getting such a movement/organization up and running?
Well as you noted over here. > [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=8292&st=0&#entry42747]No Equal Protection for Whites[/url]> Originally posted by Frederick William I@Jun 4 2003, 15:18 ** That an ethnic group would be unconcerned with its own eclipse and domination is certainly not expected by an evolutionist or, indeed, by advocates of social justice whatever their ideology. **
They obviously haven't met the American white male. We take pride in being eclipsed and eventually dominated!
So take THAT evolutionists!** It isn't an easy one. Plus of course, Professor MacDonald is not a right-wing political advocate or advisor of course. He is just a evolutionary scientist making his disintrested predictions over group behavior. ;) I'd think you would know that.
BUT, I suppose that since he predicts (disinterestedly of course ;) ) that in the long run we will survive, maybe you might want to look at how he thinks it will come about.
The present tendencies lead one to predict that unless the ideology of individualism is abandoned not only by the multicultural minorities (who have been encouraged to pursue their group interests by a generation of American intellectuals) but also by the European-derived peoples of Europe, North America, New Zealand, and Australia, the end result will be a substantial diminution of the genetic, political, and cultural influence of these peoples. It would be an unprecedented unilateral abdication of such power and certainly an evolutionist would expect no such abdication without at least a phase of resistance by a significant segment of the population. As indicated above, European-derived peoples are expected to ultimately exhibit some of the great flexibility that Jews have shown throughout the ages in advocating particular political forms that best suit their current interests.**The prediction is that segments of the European-derived peoples of the world will eventually realize that they have been ill-served and are being ill-served both by the ideology of multiculturalism and by the ideology of deethnicized individualism.
If the analysis of anti-Semitism presented in SAID is correct, the expected reaction will emulate aspects of Judaism by adopting group-serving, collectivist ideologies and social organizations.The theoretically underdetermined nature of human group processes (PTSDA, Ch. 1; MacDonald 1995b) disallows detailed prediction of whether the reactive strategy will be sufficient to stabilize or reverse the present decline of European peoples in the New World and, indeed, in their ancestral homelands; whether the process will degenerate into a selfdestructive reactionary movement as occurred with the Spanish Inquisition; or whether it will initiate a moderate and permanent turning away from radical individualism toward a sustainable group strategy. What is certain is that the ancient dialectic between Judaism and the West will continue into the foreseeable future. It will be ironic that, whatever anti-Semitic rhetoric may be adopted by the leaders of these defensive movements, they will be constrained to emulate key elements of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. Such strategic mimicry will, once again, lead to a "Judaization" of Western societies not only in the sense that their social organization will become more group-oriented but also in the sense that they will be more aware of themselves as a positively evaluated ingroup and more aware of other human groups as competing, negatively evaluated outgroups. In this sense, whether the decline of the European peoples continues unabated or is arrested, it will constitute a profound impact of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy on the development of Western societies.
(Kevin MacDonald, Culture of Critique, Final Chapter) **
To summarize, that if to achieve Franco's objectives "Name the Jew is not by itself adequate. We must also "Ape the Jew.
In other words, we all have to quit acting like a bunch of stupid goy. :huh: B)
2003-06-04 21:12 | User Profile
Walter- your previous post regarding Christianity and Nazism should be bookmarked as the OD post of the year. To it, I would add one small addendum, if I might.
Lidice.
Let any of the so-called Nazis who purport to defend Western Civilization justify that massacre of Czech women and children. I am sure they can 'justify' Auschwitz (or deny that it happened). Let them justify Lidice, or deny that it happened. I can't wait to hear it.
2003-06-04 21:20 | User Profile
Originally posted by Frederick William I@Jun 4 2003, 15:59 ** To summarize, that if to achieve Franco's objectives "Name the Jew is not by itself adequate. We must also "Ape the Jew. **
So to beat the enemy we have to become the enemy?
That kinda sucks, don't it? If we could by chance cast off our inherent nature, I wonder if we could ever gain it back. I suppose I could tolerate marching in an army for a limited period of time if I knew at some point I would be discharged and could go my own way again. I just don't know if that's possible in this day and age, especially without a frontier.
2003-06-04 21:44 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jun 4 2003, 21:20 > Originally posted by Frederick William I@Jun 4 2003, 15:59 ** To summarize, that if to achieve Franco's objectives "Name the Jew" is not by itself adequate.ÃÂ We must also "Ape the Jew" :D. **
So to beat the enemy we have to become the enemy?
That kinda sucks, don't it? If we could by chance cast off our inherent nature, I wonder if we could ever gain it back. I suppose I could tolerate marching in an army for a limited period of time if I knew at some point I would be discharged and could go my own way again. I just don't know if that's possible in this day and age, especially without a frontier. I was being slightly ironical. However we want to do it re:> As indicated above, European-derived peoples are expected to ultimately exhibit some of the great flexibility that Jews have shown throughout the ages in advocating particular political forms that best suit their current interests.The prediction is that segments of the European-derived peoples of the world will eventually realize that they have been ill-served and are being ill-served both by the ideology of multiculturalism and by the ideology of deethnicized individualism. ** ....we've got to do it.
It's the history of civilization if not one of the paradoxes of life. The Indians that survived had to give up hunting on the range and learn to live like the white man. In WWI the allies, faced with poison gas, had to learn to use it themselves. Culture is never static, it must always be dynamic and learn to evolve with its environment and meet threats from its competitors. The military example seems appropriate. To preserve their freedoms our soldiers must, for a time, give a substantial portion of them up.
If that "sucks" so be it. War is hell.
2003-06-04 21:57 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jun 4 2003, 21:18 I will point out that if Jews attempted to infiltrate and capture the West from whites with the Kahane strategy, they would still be in the ghettoes where they rightfully belong. Instead, they adopt such respectable, friendly, and mainstream facades as "Liberalism" and "Neoconservatism." Given how much success the neos have had in capturing America's institutions, we must learn from their success and adopt their strategies. I agree with you, with the caveat that few things about the neo's really strike one as "subtle", it just they aren't completely brazen.
The first lesson is that rather than writing Sobran style tirades about "the Constitution" and "free markets," we like the neos, must learn to use the Managerial State to our advantage.
I will never love the Managerial State, but I agree with you inasmuch as we must learn to deal with it as something that just isn't going to go away with the socio-cultural situation we have been put in, at least any time very soon.
Spengler put it this way in the weimer republic "we must adjust to and adapt socialism or we die"
**The second and more important lesson is that our spokesmen should represent White Interests as subtly and as cryptically as Neocons represent the Jewish agenda.
**
In other words, we've got to learn to play the game.
2003-06-04 22:25 | User Profile
** AntiYuppie wrote:
Franco et al seem to believe that whites should adopt the Rabbi Kahane strategy, i.e. spewing vitriole and hatred towards Jews in the same way that Rabbi Kahane and his followers openly smear "the goyim."**
Ahh -- that is where you are kinda mistaken. I do not advocate "spewing vitriole" at Jews [although I have nothing against it :D ]. I do not usually do such. What I do advocate is simply outing the Jew each time. If there is a Jew in the woodpile, you gotta root him out.
Example: Skunk's post in Breaking News, in Current Events. Notice how Skunk did not just toss out the usual, paleocon "I hate those abort doctors/supporters/flackers?" Skunk actually trotted out their Jewishness and their names, with a photo, as I noted already.
See? We must do that EACH TIME. Just like you learned English by repetition, so must you teach Judaism 101 by the same. Plus, it's a lot of fun... :lol: :lol:
2003-06-04 22:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by Frederick William I@Jun 4 2003, 16:44 If that "sucks" so be it. War is hell.
Granted I was playing a bit of the gadfly. We've discussed all this at length before on several occasions.
There never seems to be any good, practical solutions offered though and that's what I was trying to get at. Well that and stir things up a little. It's been quiet the last couple of days or so.
2003-06-04 22:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by grep14w@Jun 3 2003, 00:53 Christianity didn't defeat Communism, either. It merely survived it. Some Christians, in concert with non-believers, helped to push over the rotting carcass of Communism when they were allowed** to do so by their rulers. Once again, modern Christians followed the lead of others; they did not lead.
**
You must be quite young, in mind if not in age. The current Pope singlehandedly brought about the end of Communism in Poland, which quickly resulted in the Fall of The Berlin Wall and the end of the USSR through peaceful means. You really need an education. Stop hypothesyzing and try to learn. The role of Ronald Reagan is overexaggerated, because he called it the " evil empire " and tried to start star wars. That was already after the fact and hype. Please, for your own good start some research. [url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pope/etc/bio.html]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...pe/etc/bio.html[/url]
2003-06-04 23:18 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jun 4 2003, 17:18 > To summarize, that if to achieve Franco's objectives "Name the Jew is not by itself adequate. We must also "Ape the Jew."**
Basically, most of us here agree that the only way to combat the Jewish collective strategy (and the collective strategies of colored people in America), we must adopt a "Judaism for Whites," i.e. some form of white nationalist "collectivism."
The question of course is what form WN should take and how it should be sold. Franco et al seem to believe that whites should adopt the Rabbi Kahane strategy, i.e. spewing vitriole and hatred towards Jews in the same way that Rabbi Kahane and his followers openly smear "the goyim."
I will point out that if Jews attempted to infiltrate and capture the West from whites with the Kahane strategy, they would still be in the ghettoes where they rightfully belong. Instead, they adopt such respectable, friendly, and mainstream facades as "Liberalism" and "Neoconservatism." Given how much success the neos have had in capturing America's institutions, we must learn from their success and adopt their strategies.
The first lesson is that rather than writing Sobran style tirades about "the Constitution" and "free markets," we like the neos, must learn to use the Managerial State to our advantage. The second and more important lesson is that our spokesmen should represent White Interests as subtly and as cryptically as Neocons represent the Jewish agenda.**
The second and more important lesson is that our spokesmen should represent White Interests as subtly and as cryptically as Neocons represent the Jewish agenda.
I agree with this and am interested in it. How exactly would this strategy look, in practice? I've seen you speak positively about David Duke, for example, in the past and agree with your assessments, and yet while Duke is respectable and rational, he still catches hell from the usual suspects since they know what he's about, and he does mention the Jews by name.
I guess what I'm asking is what constitutes "subtle" and "cryptic." I agree with this strategy, since it did work for the Jews as you've pointed out, but I often wonder how I'll be able to tell the rhetoric of the cryptic "good guys" apart from the rhetoric of Jew-coopted, false flag operations. I don't want to end up giving money, public support, or other valuable and finite resources to the wrong people, thinking that "they really 'know the deal' and are one of us."
Are there any recurring qualities or special phrases that you can suggest that will be sufficiently cryptic yet be enough for someone like me to "know a friend when I see one?" How different is the subtle/cryptic strategy from the more popularly known example of the use of "code words" [such as "safe neighborhood = no minorities," etc.]? Of course, by telling me, you'd be telling enemies like Cachelot who are lurking out there, too.
2003-06-04 23:31 | User Profile
AntiYuppie --
I think you forget the Jewish Achilles Heel: they are very small in number.
Jews HAD to be cryptic to worm their way into gentile society. But we have MILLIONS of Whites against them, IF THOSE MILLIONS OF WHITES STOOD UP AT ONCE and named the Jew. If that happened tomorrow, oh boy! Hymieberg and his Zhidfeld Follies would be running for the border, and I don't mean for burritos at Taco Joe's.
We Whites have the numbers IF WE USE THOSE NUMBERS. If we sit around and whisper cryptic "Likkudnik"-isms to Sally I'mALawyerIsn'tThatCute, then that revolt will never happen.
[edited]
2003-06-05 00:42 | User Profile
I know this thread is old.. but I have a direct question for Franco. Franco - you did not acknowledge my post.. let me ask you a question.. do you agree with it ? outside of your supposed WP what do you think the Pope's role in the end of Communism was ? Don't you dare feed me any bull. You dance around reality, like a man under fire at the foot.
2003-06-05 03:15 | User Profile
The Pope's role in ending Communism? Minimal. Hardly any.
Communism ran out of gas. The Jews, and their lackeys, drove it 'til it stalled. Even Castro had to allow private dollar stores in Cuba. [Castro is a Marrano part-Zhid, by the way...who'da thunkit....].
Christians have had little to do with stopping Marxism. Look at the Catholic country of Nicaragua. The Pope visited there, but the contras and lack of $$$$ stopped Communism there for the most part.
2003-06-05 06:10 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jun 4 2003, 21:18 ** The first lesson is that rather than writing Sobran style tirades about "the Constitution" and "free markets," we like the neos, must learn to use the Managerial State to our advantage. The second and more important lesson is that our spokesmen should represent White Interests as subtly and as cryptically as Neocons represent the Jewish agenda.
**
Right on the money.
We need to infiltrate all the major MBA programs and law schools.
Those are the young we really need to target. We need to put the argument in economic terms, showing how affirmative action really hurts them. Especially white women.
We need to re-take the various church institutions, because that's where the buildings and budgets are.
In short, we must have our own counter March Through the Insititutions.
Walter
2003-06-05 06:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jun 5 2003, 00:10 ** > Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jun 4 2003, 21:18 ** The first lesson is that rather than writing Sobran style tirades about "the Constitution" and "free markets," we like the neos, must learn to use the Managerial State to our advantage. The second and more important lesson is that our spokesmen should represent White Interests as subtly and as cryptically as Neocons represent the Jewish agenda.
**
Right on the money.
We need to infiltrate all the major MBA programs and law schools.
Those are the young we really need to target. We need to put the argument in economic terms, showing how affirmative action really hurts them. Especially white women.
We need to re-take the various church institutions, because that's where the buildings and budgets are.
In short, we must have our own counter March Through the Insititutions.
Walter **
I'm in law school right now and I will say that I was genuinely surprised by the number of people I met who are possesed of a White racial consciousness. I think much of this has to do with the hardship endured by many of these young professionals in the current job market (i.e. "Whitey need not apply").
Call me an idealist, but I do believe that the pendulum is swinging in our favor.
2003-06-05 07:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@Jun 5 2003, 03:15 ** The Pope's role in ending Communism? Minimal. Hardly any.
Communism ran out of gas. The Jews, and their lackeys, drove it 'til it stalled. Even Castro had to allow private dollar stores in Cuba. [Castro is a Marrano part-Zhid, by the way...who'da thunkit....].
Christians have had little to do with stopping Marxism. Look at the Catholic country of Nicaragua. The Pope visited there, but the contras and lack of $$$$ stopped Communism there for the most part. **
Minimal?
Again, unlike I assume anyone else here I WAS BLOODY THERE so kindly take the cotton out of your Nazi ears, shove it your Nazi mouth (or any other nearby, natural orifice), shut up and listen.
The Poles were inspired in those years. I've never seen that sort of quiet courage, such absolute rock-solid resolve, before or since. They were ready to die for their cause. They were absolutely dedicated to killing Bolshevism and to driving the Russians out of Poland. It was as if every breath they took was for the cause. No conversation - even about the weather - was complete without some open denunciations of Bolshevism. I saw them egg on the Communists in Moscow in public meetings. I saw some of them go to jail and face deportation. These people were brave and inspired, and I am honored and humbled to have known them.
Every apartment and office window in downtown Warsaw had either a picture of JPII or the Virgin of Kazan facing outward. The Catholic Church organized, inspired, instructed and financed Solidarity. The Catholic Church provided the intelligence connection with the CIA and others who funneled in money, printing machines and other organizational requirements. The Catholic Church, by the way, and her social teachings played a major role in preventing the collectivizationof Polish agriculture as happened in the USSR, thus leaving in tact a large class of small farmers and traders who played such a key role in the rapid post-Soviet development of Poland. There's no question about any of that.
The threat in Poland was a major drag on the Soviet economy, and the CPSU's inability to deal with the Poles emboldened similar movements among the captive peoples of Eastern Europe. Special mention here goes to the Catholic Church in Slovakia, who worked one of the great miracles of the 20th century by keeping the Faith alive in Slovakia. Solidarity was the linchpin in Eastern Europe, and the Catholic Church was the hand on that linchpin.
In Afghanistan, Islam defeated with patient perseverance the Soviet juggernaut. No doubt about that either. I spent a couple years in the USSR when all of this was going down. I saw with my own eyes the demoralization of the Russians and their growing contempt for the Communists and their imperial wars on the Poles and Islam. They didn't want it. They didn't want to pay for it, either with their labor or the lives of their sons. Low oil prices played a big part in this.
The USSR's fall is a classic study in the collapse of empires. Economic and social stress factors converged at a single point in time and the thing came down. Real, vital religion - especially Catholicism and Islam - were the big social factors. Low oil prices and Reagan's arms race were the big economic factors. And down it came.
So, Franco, you can put the cotton back in your ears and get back to your relentlessly boring task of naming the Jew.
Warmest regards,
Walter
2003-06-05 07:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jun 5 2003, 02:15 ** The Poles were inspired in those years. I've never seen that sort of quiet courage, such absolute rock-solid resolve, before or since. They were ready to die for their cause. **
The only experience I have that seems to support your assertion here was watching the movie "To Kill a Priest" with Ed Harris and Christopher Lambert. If you've seen the movie I would be interested in your opinion of it.
2003-06-05 08:10 | User Profile
[SIZE=3]White Nationalism & So-Called "Unity"[/SIZE]
Walter E. Kurtz said:> ** "Unfortunately, paranoia and hostility abound at sites like SF. The NA, KKK, Skinhead crowd really make me laugh. They speak of a "mass movement" that is formenting, but then any White Nationalist who questions their bizarre orthodoxy is accused of being:
1) A Jew 2) A federal agent 3) A Jewish federal agent**
Walter E. Kurtz is right on target in his assessment of Stormfront. Anyone who dares to suggest that shaved-headed, swastika-tattooed skinheads just might be harmful to the progress of white nationalism is immediately pounced upon by one of SF's moderators - usually by one calling himself "Muad Dib" - who is so rabidly anti-Jewish one could easily imagine flecks of spittle on his lips as hits the ban button on you and your post.
And God help you if you say anything negative about The National Alliance. If you do - out pops "Muad Dib" again, like some sadistic Jack-In-The-Box from a 60's episode of The Twilight Zone. It's rather ironic, too, since posters on Stormfront are always whining about "Jew censorship" even though their forum is one of the most ruthlessly censored of any forum on the Internet.
All that aside, the important thing to know is this: Stormfront is not the way to bring white Americans together in order to strategize a blueprint for racial survival. Don Black himself is a former Ku Klux Klan leader and ex-con who once ran off to the Dominican Republic on some hare-brained scheme to overthrow the black government there. The only thing he's accomplished (other than marrying David Duke's ex-wife) is to bring together the largest single collection of Hitler buffs, play-dress-up Nazis, pathetic KKK losers, semi-psycho followers of Matt Hale, and the like.
As for the The National Alliance, they're far from being something one would want to associate with. Just visit their affiliate website, called Resistance Records. They sell "hatecore" CDs carrying titles like "Dirty Greasy Spic", "Aryan Terrorism", and "Run, Nigger, Run".
That's just what white nationalism needs - an organization that sells products bearing the word "terrorism".
Oh brother....
2003-06-05 11:37 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jun 5 2003, 07:27 ** > Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jun 5 2003, 02:15 ** The Poles were inspired in those years. I've never seen that sort of quiet courage, such absolute rock-solid resolve, before or since. They were ready to die for their cause. **
The only experience I have that seems to support your assertion here was watching the movie "To Kill a Priest" with Ed Harris and Christopher Lambert. If you've seen the movie I would be interested in your opinion of it. **
It was okay - not great.
Based on a true story.
Walter
2003-06-05 16:43 | User Profile
Originally posted by Tom Rennick@Jun 5 2003, 02:10 ** As for the The National Alliance, they're far from being something one would want to associate with. Just visit their affiliate website, called Resistance Records. They sell "hatecore" CDs carrying titles like "Dirty Greasy Spic", "Aryan Terrorism", and "Run, Nigger, Run".
That's just what white nationalism needs - an organization that sells products bearing the word "terrorism".
Oh brother....**
Hah! That's one of my biggest pet peeves. The musical quality in the "scene" is absolutely horrible. I wish they would learn how to actually make music instead of mostly unlistenable noise.
2003-06-05 18:23 | User Profile
Classical is the real white supremacist music. White metal says white people are superior, but classical music shows it. Every flute taunts "let's see you darkies do this", and every violin makes fun of jewish whining. :rock:
2003-06-05 18:58 | User Profile
Originally posted by Drakmal@Jun 5 2003, 12:23 Classical is the real white supremacist music. White metal says white people are superior, but classical music shows it. Every flute taunts "let's see you darkies do this", and every violin makes fun of jewish whining. :rock:
:punk:
The worst thing is, I haven't even heard "White Power" metal that's good from a metal standpoint. The only thing listenable on Resistance, that I've heard so far, is Vintersorg (I really like Vintersorg, but his music is not at all political or "White Power") and Johnny Rebel. They should have more bands focused on music... some good neoclassical, folk, and quality metal instead of the same tired, angst-driven hatecore noise by bands that all sound like they use the same musicians who can barely play and the same vocalist who can't sing.
2003-06-05 19:19 | User Profile
Totally. Symphonic metal bands who use violins, flutes, musicians who can actually play, and vocalists who can actually sing (which would probably be called "pussies" and "fags" by the hatecore crowd) fill me with more "White Pride" than some screamy tatoo dudes who have less musical creativity than the garage band I hung out with in junior high.
2003-06-05 21:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by grep14w@Jun 3 2003, 00:53 Allow me to play Devil's Advocate here... Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jun 3 2003, 00:14 Nazism is a loser ideology that was designed by a bunch of losers who lead a great nation to utter ruin.ÃÂ Chrstianity helped defeat Nazism, and is thus stronger and thus more worthy of emulation, judging even by your own benighted standards.ÃÂ Chrsitianity has the shrunken heads of Nazism and Bolshevism dangling from her belt.ÃÂ ** Nazism is the only political movement in modern times to successfully free an entire White nation from the Jews. When was the last time Christianity established such a feat? 1492?
Losing a war doesn't make one a "loser" in some larger metaphysical sense, unless you feel like being consistent, and, say, plan on visiting the Alamo some time and publicly laugh at those "losers" who died there. Battles have been lost, but the war continues.
Christianity didn't defeat Nazism; the overwhelming resources of the USA, USSR, and British Empire did. How "Christian" was the FDR administration? Or Churchill (don't recall seeing him in Church that often; he must have been sleeping off another drinking bout)? How Christian was Stalin and the USSR (without which, defeating Hitler would have been impossible)?
All I see in WWII is a bunch of white, Christian nations fighting each other, all of them ruled by regimes that were to varying degrees un-Christian, a-Christian, or anti-Christian. Arguably the Nazis were the least hostile to Christianity, in the long run; Nazi Party anti-Christianity was all in the minds of a few party hot-heads who had little chance of instituting such a policy even had the Nazis "won". "Paganism" or anti-Christianity were simply not on Hitler's agenda, as he stated on numerous occasions. Whereas even back then, the Jews were beginning to gain control over the Western "democracies" and were setting the stage for their later anti-Christian policies.
I realize you are trying to bait Franco, but these facts need to be stated. Christianity is a spent force in the West (no one is worried about the return of the Inquisition, Wars of Religion, or Crusades); it is a political whore that goes along with whatever the current social fashion is. In Hitler's Germany, it for the most part went along with the regime. Today, it mouths multi-racial platitudes and does everything it can to show that it is a loyal member of ZOG. Tomorrow, if we are successful, it will "discover" that white nationalism and Christianity were compatible all along, and will sing our praises and hail the rediscovery of "orthodoxy" and the salvation of Christianity from the Judeo-Christian heretics who currently run things. Christianity is simply the "stamp of approval" that any Establishment can expect when it attains power in a Western country.
Christianity didn't defeat Communism, either. It merely survived it. Some Christians, in concert with non-believers, helped to push over the rotting carcass of Communism when they were allowed to do so by their rulers. Once again, modern Christians followed the lead of others; they did not lead.
So I do agree with you, we have to curb hostilities to Christians as such, and have the broadest possible coalition of whites, of whatever religious persuasion. But I don't agree that Nazis are "losers" or that there is something magical or all-powerful about Christianity as such (certainly not modern, post-1700 Christianity). Nazism and Nazi symbols should be avoided not because of "Christians" nor even necessarily because they are viewed as negative by the brainwashed majority of whites, but because the politics and symbolism of 1930's Germany is entirely inapplicable to 21st century America. It's time to move on. Find a new strategy that works; it may in fact have many resemblences to National Socialism as such, but it will invariably be a creature of its own time and place, and thus, not National Socialism.**
Ah, realism! Best post of the thread! :th:
Don't let the white gloves and perfume discourage you.