|
|
|
On Linder and the attack on the conservatives The current convulsions in the Regnery ... er, quarter occasioned by Alex Linder’s brutal but strategic attack on “conservatives” cannot go by without debate here. Accordingly, I’m posting a comment I’ve put on an Occidental Dissent thread (as it happens, about the, to me, entirely irrelevant changes at Takimag). The comment is addressed to an OD commenter called Stephen Elliott, who is new at OD and who I have assumed to be Friedrich Braun. Mr Elliott took it upon himself both to castigate our colleague Captainchaos and to pass a negative remark about MR. So the beginning of my response is a little personal. But it quickly opens out into politics.
Comments:2
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:21 | # GW writes: A little openness in August, a little respect and brotherliness, might have produced a more cordial outcome - not agreement across the revolutionary evolutionary fissure, perhaps, but a willingness among the revolutionaries for the experiment to be tried on a limited time-scale, and in the understanding that its assured failure will mark the last attempt by the people involved to lead us in that direction. Of course, I’m all for experiments on mutually consenting human subjects if they can do it on their own separate territory at their own expense enjoying or suffering their own fruits—particularly in the lands of European Diaspora such as the several States of the US. Even if they can’t do it on their own territory, it is laudable so long as there is reasonable assurance from all concerned that the ecology (including human ecology) won’t be changed in ways that are obviously objectionable to most of the people affected (as is the case with open borders psychos now in control of the West). Whatever the plans of the Regnery quarter, what they are up to should become apparent soon enough that various predictions can be made by adherents to various causal hypotheses in human ecology. So, while secrecy is anathema to science in general, and could plausibly be damaging in this case, I don’t think it likely to be damaging in and of itself. Where damage may occur secondary to the secrecy is the consumption of what might be called, in effect, nonrenewable resources in the human ecology before that damage can be prevented. Such damage is, however, purely speculative at this point and is insufficient to demand full disclosure of the intended plans. Think about it like war: Secrecy is necessary in battle preparation, but once the smoke has cleared and the bodies are counted, there can—nay must be a reckoning. 3
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:22 | # Friedrich Braun has already made a direct attack on MR and GW at OD on 20 December, no name changes needed. You can see his comment in full here. Note this para:
I pointed this out here on MR on December 23. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 02:29 | # It appears that Hunter Wallace or one of his helpers has closed the thread on me. James, The TOQers conservatisation approach - if Alex Linder is right and that’s what it is - is evolutionary, nor revolutionary. Where is the need for secrecy if the object is merely to shape one’s image and discourse to the established forms? The secrecy is the product not of need but of personal preference on the part of, probably, one individual in the TOQ heirarchy. In that event it signifies not warfare but dismissiveness, perhaps snobbery, towards other WNs. But WN must strive towards unity and brotherhood, and away from such divisiveness. At the very least, a proper explanation and an apology for the secrecy is owing to every American WN. If it is not forthcoming, the suspicion necessarily arises that some in the Regnery quarter are less interested in real white Americans than in the personal development and gain to be extracted from a conservatising approach. If that suspicion is unworthy, let Greg Johnson kill it off now with an appropriate response. 5
Posted by PF on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 02:41 | # Is this Friedrich Braun the same Friedrich Braun who used to tandem-post letters and memoranda in the name of Nazi apologetics? Surreal. Wasn’t there an articulate and good-spirited southern guy apparently of Austrian derivation who used to post under a pseudonym in 2007? He was running Occidental Dissent. I cant remember his old pseudonym! He appeared one day at MR and had a ton of info on American history and Civil War history. He was really cool. If anyone can explain to me in a nutshell what has happened, I would appreciate it. Is there evidence that Friedrich is mentally ill, or has he just done a 180 on some ideological questions? 6
Posted by Hunter Wallace on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 02:51 | # I closed several threads because the Alex Linder discussion, which has been going on for two weeks now, is literally consuming every thread. I’ve a ton of complaints about it. Most people are tired of the soap opera. It can always continue over here. 7
Posted by Hunter Wallace on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 02:53 | # PF, I used to post here as Scimitar. Occdental Dissent has been back since May. I’m posting there as “Hunter Wallace” now. 8
Posted by PF on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 03:12 | # Hunter, Thanks for reminding me! You were one of the greats of 2007!! I have to do research to figure out what this brewhaha is all about. 9
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 03:22 | # Hunter, there are people, myself included, who don’t know what Guessedworker and James Bowery are referring to by these “secret meetings” of Greg Johnson’s group this past summer. What happened? What were these “meetings” about? Would you, or GW, or James Bowery, or perhaps Greg Johnson care to explain? Hearing these references, one gets the feeling there was something resembling “a Bilderbergers of the WNs” that took place last August. I was thinking of approaching GW by private e-mail to ask for an explanation but that would leave everyone else in the dark — doubtless others are scratching their heads too. 10
Posted by Hunter Wallace on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 03:26 | # There are two separate issues to be addressed here. 1.) First, there is no substance to Alex Linder’s charge that OD, TOQ Online, or Occidental Observer are “conservative.” All three sites are 1.) explicitly racial, 2.) name the Jew, and 3.) endorse the White ethnostate. For over a decade, that was Alex Linder’s own litmus test of who is a White Nationalist. I have an entire website dedicated to the Jewish Question. Within the last month, I have “named the Jew” at least 20x more than Alex Linder has at VNN. I post about the issue every day or every other day. http://antisemitica.wordpress.com/ No one in the entire world has done a better job of “exposing the Jew” than Dr. MacDonald. TOQ under Greg Johnson has discussed the Jewish Question for almost a decade now. It is the only academic journal in the English speaking world that addresses the issue! So what’s the difference between VNN and OD, TOO, and TOQ? - We don’t rely upon crudity and vulgarity to get our point across. 2.) Second, GW obviously has some resentment that the “Regnery circus” doesn’t publicize everything it is doing. He sees this “secrecy” as a sleight against other White Nationalists. Can you point to one - just one - public mass membership WN organization in North America that hasn’t been thoroughly penetrated by government informants and agent provocateuers, wasn’t flypaper for all types of dysfunctional individuals, accomplished anything of significance in the last fifty years, or attracted quality people in significant numbers? Again, this repeated charge of “conservatism” is silly. Conservatism is already mainstream. No one has any valid reason to hide being a “conservative.” If the “Regnery circus” was just another conservative group, there would be no reason for it to do anything in private. 11
Posted by Hunter Wallace on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 03:33 | # I don’t like the analytical distinction that GW is drawing between “evolutionary” and revolutionary.” The system we have now was brought about by a social revolution, but it was a gradual evolutionary process that transformed Calvin Coolidge’s America to Barack Obama’s America. 12
Posted by Stephen Elliott on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 03:34 | # ...and to pass a negative remark about MR. I didn’t post “a negative remark about MR” - at least not in my mind. I did say that after five years of activity MR hasn’t come up with a “new philosophy” that GW thinks Whites need for their survival, while admonishing and knocking O.D. and T.O.Q. for only producing analysis. I guess I don’t regard M.R. to be superior to T.O.Q. or O.D., if that’s a negative remark, okay…I think that this 5-year-old quest for the ideologically Holy Grail is bunk and a pretext for not engaging in practical politics or at least on ground activism. Why aren’t you involved in the B.N.P., G.W.? You vote for it. But that would require getting your feet wet, leaving the front of your computer, and renouncing the comforts of anonymity. In a reply to your defence of Linder, you were repeatedly asked to state where T.O.Q. and O.D. have sold out. They haven’t and you know it. http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/01/03/richard-spencer-leaves-takimag/#comments Linder’s attacks aren’t motivated by ideology or noble sentiments. He constantly attacks in the most vicious and personal ways W.N.‘s and sows discord and enmity. He has successfully isolated himself on his little VNN island. That’s quite an accomplishment. He proves time and again that he’s incapable of working with anyone. Further, he has now moved the goalpost: if you don’t advocate the en masse killing of Jews, you’re a “career girl” or “conservative.” It requires a great deal of courage to make grandiose threats one can’t possibly carry out! Somehow that makes him tough! All Linder does is put W.N. in disrepute. Tim Wise has already said that if anti-racists didn’t have Linder, they would need to invent him. And that’s the man with whom you regularly correspond and defend? I thought you were a better man, G.W. I was wrong. 13
Posted by Hunter Wallace on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 03:39 | # The goal is to turn Barack Obama’s America into John Doe’s White ethnostate. We want to bring about a social revolution through a similar gradual, incremental, evolutionary process. 14
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 03:50 | # Fred Scrooby writes: Hunter, there are people, myself included, who don’t know what Guessedworker and James Bowery are referring to by these “secret meetings” of Greg Johnson’s group this past summer. Your guess is as good as mine, Fred. I know no more about it than you and, indeed, I’ve become aware of this fracas only in the last two days. I think I’ve made my point about truth and freedom to the point there should be no more need to address it. It is the philosophical breakthrough sought by GW even if he doesn’t recognize it. MR has served its purpose. If “the Jew” stands in the way of making good on that plausible promise, then there is, indeed, no way but through “the Jew” as with anyone who stands in our way. 15
Posted by Hunter Wallace on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 04:27 | # 95% of Americans can’t tell you the first thing about philosophy. To be sure, they have identifiable liberal beliefs, but they are unable to defend them in a coherent and logical way. GW is holding out hope for a Counter Enlightenment that would undermine and destroy the liberal democratic capitalist system. I doubt many people in the “Regnery quarter” would oppose a social revolution of that sort. On the contrary, they would probably be all for it. It is worth observing here though that the “philosophy” that GW is calling for would be an elite product. The only people who would find it interesting are elite academics and intellectuals. If GW is trying to influence elites (or educate a potential counter elite), I don’t see the basis of his criticism of Regnery and TOQ. 16
Posted by Stephen Elliott on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 04:47 | # Guessedworker has had 5 years to come up with his allegedly indispensable new philosophy and hasn’t done so. But T.O.Q. and O.D. are failures for not producing this ideological Holy Grail without which Whites won’t survive and prosper? Kettle, black. Guessedworker’s flatulent sermons are ludicrous. I’ve said that all the ideological equipment is in place; what we do need is organizational skills. 17
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 06:51 | # I’m quite disappointed that GW is permitting MR to become embroiled in these interminable and entirely non-productive cyber soap-operas. Is it really necessary? 18
Posted by Red Mercury on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 08:28 | # Fred, The ‘secret meeting’ was held in Atlanta. Various WN writers, academics, and activists were in attendance, many of whom participate at OD and MR, including HW, and whose screennames you would recognise. Nothing extraordinarily ground-breaking was decided upon, but there will be some positive developments in the nascent ‘movement’ in coming months. We are moving in the right direction. 19
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 08:56 | #
I’m afraid these are questions that must be answered sooner or later. Perhaps conditions under which the discussion is to occur is regrettable, yet we are certainly not guaranteed more congenial circumstances later. For a man’s self-interest are so intimately bound up in him having or attempting to gain for himself a ‘seat at the table’ in discussing these issues, advocating for his position, and ultimately agreeing upon a solution, or a policy that is the best moving forward that we are to abide by. It is certainly not unreasonable, and I think wholly reasonable, that a man should not expect his total ruination if he is to step forward in solving the problems that swirl around these issues - that are far reaching in their implications - to follow unavoidably as a consequence. Dr. Johnson has every right to defend himself against that prospect that no sane man would allow to be commended to him. But that such will be attempted by our enemies when a man sticks his head up far enough to justify him as a target in the minds of said enemies cannot also be reasonably questioned. So a man - and we must have men do as such at some point - will eventually have to face that fire. Yet also the way in which a man defends himself also has wide ranging potential implications. This is a point I’ve tried to make manifest to what I will call - hopefully without insult, yet think it a description accurate in its connotations - the Johnson Faction. If a man gets in the habit of making unpersons of his opponent (and I am perfectly aware that that is what Linder is essentially doing - and justly accrues criticism for it) then he paves the way for it to be more readily applied by the above mentioned enemies that we will inevitably have to face! And, unfortunately, what a man is - even unto his private life - is relevant as what a man does, and what a man’s interests are, is again, so intimately bound up with what he is - and what he will advocate consistent with his self-defense and self-interest (we are here largely genetic determinists so are feet are indeed held to the fire there - unavoidably). Linder it is claimed is a sociopath, which if true has bearing on his competency to decide these issues, and I’m afraid that if, as is alleged, Dr. Johnson is a homosexual, also has consequence (I do not say to his moral competency, but to the ways in which he could potentially be leaned upon as compromising his self-interest and self-defence my unscrupulous opponents - either now or at another time). I’ll try to aid in the elucidation and resolution of these issues to the degree that it is in my ability to do. 20
Posted by Hunter Wallace on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:41 | # Captainchaos, Do you think your own personal life should be fair game? 21
Posted by Hunter Wallace on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:45 | # If Linder and friends had posted GW’s real name, photograph, telephone number, and mailing address on VNN Forum, I doubt he would be describing it as a brutal but strategic attack on conservatism. 22
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:01 | # And let it be stated that the right a man has who steps forward (and to what degree that would be - and to what degree he correspondingly assumes risks - is itself a question) not to face “total” personal “ruination” (what exactly would ‘total personal ruination’ include - even unto his own death as a consequence?) - one I have above stated as being a moral absolute - is not necessarily an absolute when contrasted with other arguably [and this is the argument we make - if we are serious] more important interests (e.g., genetic continuity of the ethny as his ultimate interest). Dr. MacDonald has stated in one of his articles he believes in some cases martyrdom may indeed be necessary, implying the proposition that it indeed may be probable. That begs the question of what is meant by ‘martyrdom’; in others words to what degree must one suffer for the cause of his people to attain that rank? If unto death, then certainly unto the ruination of his personal and professional life. I will explain in a subsequent post just why those of the Johnson Faction (I do not include men such as Dr. MacDonald and Tanstaafl in this for reasons that I will explain) have already advocated positions that will inevitably expose them (and men who will do it later, not just them, so argumentum ad hominem cannot justly nor with intellectual seriousness be charged) to the potential consequences mentioned above. 23
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:22 | #
And yet Linder has not mounted a “brutal” personal attack on GW as GW has taken actions while occupying a position of arguably significant enough influence on the outcome of the cause we all ostensibly hold in common that could in Linder’s opinion be devastating to the outcome of said cause (of course I am assuming that Linder is committed to that cause - which is itself even a subject of debate [I personally do believe he is so committed - but of course would be open to arguments to the contrary]). 24
Posted by PF on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:30 | # Why do TOQ and Occidental Dissent get labelled as a ‘circus’ by GW? Aren’t they our brothers, even if they dont believe in philosophy? If they have meetings, good for them! They can develop in their own direction. 25
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:40 | #
Dasein, I have already attempted to in brief address the implications of a hypothetical dynamic and its far reaching implications of debate with a true (genetic) outgrouper (i.e., one of the “enemies” I mentioned in my previous comments in this thread) with Dr. Johnson which you might review with profit. So implicitly, and I am stating explicitly now, not only is morally competency an issue for one in a position of ‘leadership’ (and I am fully prepared to haggle over a definition of just what justly is called that, whether a man wishes to acknowledge it or not) but also intellectual competency. If those that are indeed ‘leaders’ (like it or not consistent with whatever definition of what that is that can be reasonably arrived at) are intellectually incapable of - or indeed will not, which again goes to moral competency - engaging with these questions intellectually, then their competence in the fuller sense to occupy a position of ‘leadership’ has been called into question. Even though they still be decent men. And if they be humble men - which again goes to moral competence - they will accept their limitations (if indeed such be established) and leave the hard decisions to their more intellectually capable brethren. Again, implying no diminution of their status as decent men. This line of thinking is obviously what GW intends to proceed, and believes important that it does proceed, for reasons I’ll assume for the moment are consistent with my reasons for thinking as such. P.S. Just who is given ingrouper status (as the corollary to the “outgrouper” status I mentioned above in this post) and how much shit a given man is expected to take from said ingrouper by virtue of his assailant’s fellow ingrouper status. 26
Posted by Anon on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:37 | # Linder, to my knowledge, has for a long time made it clear that he wants to physically exterminate Jews. And now he is personally attacking everyone in the WN movement outside of his own collection of retards in extremely vile ways. The fact that some of you would even think about defending or associating with such a man really says a lot about you guys. It also makes me respect the so-called “philo-Semites” a lot more. Over 99 percent of whites would be immensely revolted by Linder and his views. WN will always be an extremely marginal movement if it associates itself with people like him – and deservedly so. I don’t really feel any sympathy for Hunter Wallace or Greg Johnson though. How could they ever associate themselves with such a man for so long? They are probably getting what they deserve for their foolishness. 27
Posted by Q on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:37 | # Dan Dare wrote: I’m quite disappointed that GW is permitting MR to become embroiled in these interminable and entirely non-productive cyber soap-operas. Is it really necessary? —— Hear, hear! I think this whole ugly development stemmed from when Jim Giles (Linder admirer) dissed Hunter Wallace during their interview on RFM. That really offended Hunter and I don’t blame him one bit for wanting to even the score; but it went all downhill from there. If only Hunter would have terminated the interview early-on when it became abundantly clear Giles was hostile towards him, none of the soap opera non-sense would have happened. Oh well, what happened happened. No need to continue the petty teenage girl type gossip any longer; it only serves to compound the ridiculousness of it all. 28
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:01 | # OK, I will try to keep this response brief. To start with, I have indeed mailed Alex Linder the links to this thread and to the now closed Spencer/Takimag thread at OD. I hope Alex will put in an appearance here and answer for himself. To answer Dan ... why do I think the issue is worth airing here? Because it opens up, in the American context, the conflict perennial to British nationalism between purists and accomodationists, between radicalism and activism, between ideas and methods, and between political revolution and evolution. So this is going to be with us for a long while. It’s a big deal, and by no means just a “cyber soap-opera”. Now, why does this conflict exist? Two reasons. First and very obviously, the hostility towards pro-white sentiment that is, though frequently Jewish-invented, nonetheless universal to liberalism (in the generic European sense of the word, not the narrow American sense of “left” or “blue”) is isolating in the extreme. It’s an arm-lock, and therefore escaping it in the shortest possible time becomes a major preoccupation - the major preoccupation for many of those with an activist bent, and those with a Weltanschauung substantially focussed on the good human impulses that still inform the right side of the compass. So a pulling process begins to work at what, anyway, was always a pretty loose coalition, leaving the purists, the idealists, the radicals as, in some respect, guardians of the sacred flame. Just last week in Britain the tiny National Front circulated an email in which its core purpose was described thus:
So it is that the radicals understand the inapplicability of, to be precise, any essentialist argument in the liberal domain. They attach a higher significance to their essentialism than do the activists, and do not tolerate its dilution. Correspondingly, the activists attach a higher significance to evangelism than the radicals, and question the latter’s interest in real-world results. “But which results wouldn’t you accept?” counter the radicals. So we come to the second reason this conflict exists: the ideological deficit. Activists are ideologically passive ... vessels that are filled. On the mainstream left, that filling process is achieved by what we might call “water-carriers”, specified in that Feb 08 article as:
Ideology dictates and justifies political direction. But while the left’s dedication to the nostrums of universal emancipation bestows unity and agreement to their process, we have no common ideological well from which to draw our water. We have only instinct in common, and that is a non-transferable commodity or, at least, one that is very difficult to transfer in an anti-essentialist environment like liberalism. But ideas about life are always necessary, and the only root-idea that is generally to be had in nationalist discourse - surviving elements of which inform the thinking of the great majority of our higher-profile water-carriers, including Alain de Benoist’s Grecists, and Jonathan Bowden and Tom Sunic, Rienzi/Holliday/Sallis, and others of the radicals who guard that flame - is fascism/National Socialism. Now, (i) no matter how much you wish it were otherwise, this ain’t saleable in the West, brother, and most of us reject it out of hand, and (ii) its model of Man is idealistic and untrue to the European nature. So it does not produce social results without violence, and they are, therefore, unsustainable. We can’t use it. And that, in a nutshell, is why we cannot prize conservatives from liberalism’s embrace in anything like the necessary numbers, and why any systematic attempt to do so will, at best, produce thin results. The revolution we need is, first, a revolution of root-ideas, second a systemic revolution, which is also a revolution of Man, third a revolution of the elite corps and, finally, a revolution of the people and of their daily lives. It is all, really, a matter of scale. 29
Posted by skeptical on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:23 | # How surreal. There’s nothing conservative or accommodating with the message that’s coming out of TOO, TOQ, or OD. Not only was this charge effectively answered by HW earlier in this thread (and elsewhere) but GW himself cannot come up with anything specific so he’s resorted to philosophical soliloquy. 30
Posted by Gudmund on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:43 | #
Once again we see the false dichotomy: One must either be on the side of “the exterminationists” or a “philosemite.” Frankly sir, I have to question your motives for making a post like this and in any case I, and all reasonable pro-whites for that matter, reject this false choice. Anyone who holds the interests of jews higher than those of our people is not our friend. What’s more, Linder had a good site once with many posters who were far from your “retard” slander but he managed to drive most of them out so that there are only a handful of good posters left. I would be happy to name members there who have top-notch intellectual output: Sandor, Bassanio, Hugo, Karl Radl, psychologicalshock, KVC to name a few are (or were in the case of those of the above who were banned) excellent. The “99%” argument above is a weak “appeal to the people.” Most whites are acquiescing to their displacement and eventual disappearance. Obviously we don’t agree with “99% of whites” or we wouldn’t be racialists. And furthermore if we were to give that “99%” the weight of truth we might as well just give up now. 31
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:46 | # skeptical, If you think this is surreal you are getting caught up in the surface flow. Swim deeper. To those who assume that we (not just one man here) cannot generate new ideas about, to take James’ formulation, the freedom to express our collective truth, you are pre-judging. I think several of us will make contributions of value (they know who they are). So the general theory will come together over an extended period as the work of more than one mind. Understand that I do not want to force my own preconceptions on this process, and I do not want ownership of it. Exactly the reverse. I want the theory to emerge in a form that will interest good minds elsewhere and provoke a much wider debate, because only by starting a real intellectual endeavour can the movement be, in time, equipped with the ideology it currently lacks. PF, It’s a circus because the same analysis goes round and round. 32
Posted by Anon on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:48 | # Gudmund, Read my comment again. I wasn’t saying that you have to be either a “philo-Semite” or an “exterminationalist.” I’m not opposed to criticism of the Jews as long as it’s done in a reasonable and rational manner. But it is true that I don’t think that constant criticism of Jewish influence is a good way to build a mass movement. This is because the vast majority of people have a negative reaction to any kind of conspiracy theory regardless of the amount of evidence proponents of the theory have to support their case. And that’s really what the theory of a Jewish cause for white racial decline sounds like to most people – a conspiracy theory. Indeed, even Edmund Connelly (who strikes me as being more radical on the Jewish Question than Kevin MacDonald) understands this. Look what he wrote in a recent article:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Connelly-Visual.html Gudmund, you write that:
You will never have a chance of building any kind of movement if you associate with people like Linder. In fact, it’s impossible to devise a better strategy to scare whites away than Linder has. On the other hand, I strongly believe that a sane, rational and non-genocidal approach could make a lot of headway. By the way, in my view Linder’s site has always been complete garbage. 33
Posted by skeptical on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:56 | # GW, A few bona fides. In my professional life I spend at least 6 hours out of every day meditating on abstract forms of a highly technical nature. As side activities, I’ve been able to contribute original research to the philosophy of mind and the metaphysics of truth. I can honestly say that swimming deeply might be the only kind swimming that I know how to do. And this experience has taught me that one can’t effectively swim deeply without also periodically grounding himself in the facts. In this case, you’ve made it abundantly clear that you have some kind of philosophical issue with what’s coming out of TOO, TOQ, and OD. Because of this you don’t find Linder’s charge of conservatism as being entirely baseless. Nevertheless, if you want to advance the dialectic for the purposes of developing a new theory you will need to be more specific about the mistakes that you think other people are making. It is invariably the case that theoretical progress hinges just as much on one’s ability to make good decisions as it does on one’s ability to explicitly recognize error. In your previous philosophical soliloquy you implied that the Regnery group is not radical and, therefore, does not guard the sacred [essentialist] flame. But if this sort of claim is to be anything more than a theoretical nostrum you’ll have to get specific. For that matter how can you expect any of your contributors at MR to avoid the mistakes of the Regnery crowd [in developing this new theory] without a precise understanding of what those mistakes are? Maybe now you’ll answer my question since I’ve given it in the lingua franca of MR. 34
Posted by Hunter Wallace on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:51 | # The only polarization that Linder has created is between psychopaths and normal people. Is this a helpful distinction to draw within WN? Should we be debating the merits of exterminationism ... as a strategy? Conservatives don’t have debates about murdering 7 year old girls. If Linder’s objective was to make WN look evil, then has accomplished his mission. 35
Posted by skeptical on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:03 | # If anyone reading this thread still needs proof that Linder is an unstable jerk I highly recommend that they follow the link that GW provided under the word “strategic” in his opening post. In this particular VNN thread, starting at the end of page 1 and continuing through page 2, there’s this interesting little exchange where Hadding asks Linder if he has any evidence at all about the various claims that he’s made about Greg Johnson. Linder eventually admits that he has no evidence for any of his allegations and that he doesn’t even know if the moniker “Greg Johnson” is a pseudonym. Wow. This kind of behavior reminds me of a little game that American boys would play on each other in elementary school. Here’s how it works, one boy simulates a fart sound with his hands in secret and then has a confederate accuse a targeted third boy of farting. Of course, it didn’t matter whether the target denied it or not, because the confederates would always say, “Whoever denied supplied it!” The aforementioned thread reveals that it is the same childhood mentality that lies at the root of Linder’s attacks. 36
Posted by Gudmund on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:32 | # Anon, thanks for the response.
We are not in disagreement along these lines. I’ve found in my personal experience that presenting facts with regards to, for example, the JQ (one of the many subjects dear to the racialist’s heart) in a dispassionate way is far more successful than becoming emotional about the clearly negative Jewish influence. If you do the latter, as the Linderites do, generally you come across as what most people would dub “anti-semitic whacko” whether or not what you are saying is true. On the other hand I managed to convince some people close to me of the pernicious influence merely by talking about, for example, the Zionist control of American foreign policy or the overrepresentation of Jews in leftist movements here and abroad. Many white people can be netted by appeals to reason but sometimes the approach must be gradual and in all cases it must be factual, in my opinion. This gives the highest rate of success and unless the people you are talking to are complete politically-correct ideologues they will likely be willing to listen sooner or later especially if conditions outside generally reflect or match the points you make.
Again, there were some quality posters but generally were lost amidst the middle-to-lowbrow mean at that site. 37
Posted by Stephen Elliott on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:42 | # I don’t understand why you and HW think this particular comment of Wise’s should be taken at face value. Just because Tim Wise made an observation it doesn’t automatically mean that we should discard it. Linder defines W.N. as mass murder. It that sense, Wise is correct. Again, what does it say about Guessedworker that he defends and corresponds with such an individual? What does it say about Guessedworker that he also attacks - albeit in a more civilized and opaque way - T.O.Q. and O.D. for not being radical enough and not producing a “new philosophy”? I think it’s all just a smokescreen: M.R. isn’t any more radical and after 5 years hasn’t produced this new philosophy either (but it’s just around the corner, folks! GW. keeps announcing its imminent birth!). So what do we really have? Jealousy? Bitterness at his exclusion from the “Regnery circus”? What? What do you really want from T.O.Q, O.D., and the entire “Regnery circus”, GW? Finally, why don’t you mind your own business? You have M.R., show us all the way! Tells us how it should be done! Come up with this indispensable “new philosophy” you keep babbling about. Name the Jew! Radicalize M.R.! Whatever. 38
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:36 | # GW responded:
Is the map on the masthead meant to signify something about the purpose of this vehicle or is it simply a decorative embellishment? 39
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:55 | # The OD’s one idea and the product of it’s secret meetings is to export a Linder obsession to anyone who will buy, or barter for it in exchange for ideas, provided they are about Linder. The OD claims to be a forum to research and brainstorm ideas pursuant to the shared goal of changing the direction of Society. In actual fact it is a forum devoted to the research and brainstorming of ideas pursuant to the shared goal of secretly admiring Linder…and any other of Hunter Wallace unrequited loves and spurned suitors, Hunters main complaint with Mr. Giles is that Giles didn’t first say please before having his way with him. 41
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:06 | # Wikitopian,
Yet in the real world there are those that exercise decisive impact by their decisions at almost any level of society you might care to name. To claim differently is “amusingly misguided,” and to belittle one’s interlocutor without every really engaging the substance of his points by adopting a tone of snide bemusement does not speak well for one - it does not speak well for you.
42
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:40 | #
The stake Europeans have in which way America goes is none less than potentially the survival of their peoples and nations. The idea that America as it stands today would countenance a major European country - and certainly several, which would be needed to stand together to make a real, sustainable change for their peoples - going nationalist and affecting serious policies for the survival of its people is unthinkable. America would intervene. The relevance of the Regnery people is that, for all we can see now, there is nothing else but them that we can reasonably assume will set the tone for action at the level of the political on behalf of White interests on the North American continent. Of course you believe White America will sink irrevocably into the mire, so problem solved as far as you are concerned. Back to discussing the trees, and let the forest take care of itself, eh? 43
Posted by Gudmund on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:06 | #
Precisely. As I’ve warned European nationalists in the past, there will be no point to any national revolution anywhere in Europe if the present Judeo-supremacist machinery remains in place in Washington DC. White racialism must triumph in America if it is to triumph anywhere. This point cannot be emphasized enough. Dan Dare has allowed parochialism to blind him to this fact. Judeo-America will not tolerate a nationalist Britain. If America were willing to intervene on the scale of the World Wars of the 20th cent. they will certainly not refrain from involvement now when the global agenda is so near to fruition. They will swat petty nationalist states like flies. 44
Posted by Gudmund on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:13 | # The only condition in which the above will not be absolute is in the case that Euro nationalist movements form some kind of alliance with Russia. And of course given the direction of the EU we must consider that quite unlikely. America must be won. 45
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:25 | #
Then we’re all doomed. Doomed, I tell you! White racialism has less chance of triumphing in America under the present crop of poseurs and onanists who constitute the Movement than I have of winning the National Lottery. And I never buy tickets. 46
Posted by Gudmund on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:36 | #
Don’t kill the messenger, Dare. You are no fool so you should consider the American question in a sober and clear-eyed fashion. Don’t just shrug it aside sarcastically. There has to be some answer to the dilemma presented by the American regime. If not a racialist takeover, then what? 47
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:40 | # White flight. Lots of it. For several more generations. Then we’ll see. 48
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:56 | #
So an act of the will in light of reason, then?
Or is it the shortsighted chortling of a dogmatist for whom that which is not two inches in front of his face is unreal and therefore laughable, the baseline emotional state of his personality holding final sway?
Are you even aware of what assertions Hunter Wallace and Greg Johnson have been making? Presumably those would be the “points” disputed.
Man, that’s a tough one, let me see here, any where from the manager of a McDonald’s to the CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation?
I don’t know, do you live as a hermit in the woods? 49
Posted by Gudmund on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:58 | #
Remember too that the “poseurs and onanists” are not immortal and most of them are getting old. Multiculturalism is increasingly shown to be a totalitarian means of social-political-economic disruption. Accordingly America is coming apart at the seams. Given these points I’m not utterly without hope for the future as there may be some revolutionary impetus amidst all this although I do agree that it looks pretty bleak right now. 50
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 02:06 | #
As for Wikitopian, any thinking that goes beyond the scope of his particular wonkish bailiwick is greeted with self-preening, self-justify sniggers that reduce to caricature his interlocutor’s points. This is no doubt an emotional default for them (eerily similar of the Pavlovian responses of the left, no?) And as such it is not they who laugh with justice. (Dare’s saving grace is that the quality of his wonk work dwarf’s Wikitopian’s by orders of magnitude.) 51
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 02:09 | # What I am looking is a glimmer of political consciousness. If that existed I might change my tune, but in its absence all we have is philosophy and navel-gazing. With a little light genocide thrown in of course. 53
Posted by Carsten Westermarck on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 02:32 | # Why is Guessedworker associating with welfare bum sociopath Linder? I would have to concur that MR isn’t more radical or philosophical than TOQ, so what’s really behind these attacks? Why Linder does anything is anybody’s guess. 54
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:08 | #
That’s what the Regnery people hope to engender. There is disagreement about the best way to approach the matter.
Well stick around a while before you shuffle of this mortal coil and see what develops will you please? The mindset of those that act politically is essential to success. And that mindset will not be set by those who seem congenitally unable to apply process without insight. Something akin to the hammer and not the carpenter deciding which nail and where to hammer next, and so forth. (I mean, it was necessary for me just recently in this thread to demonstrate to those that are so cocksure of their intellectual merits that they chortle with mindless glee that a phenomenon exists generally before they would even entertain the possibility that it perhaps exists in a particular instance - when that it exists generally should have been obvious and was the mental stumbling block that kept them from entertaining the possibility that said phenomenon existed in the particular instance in question!) There are those whose face is also adorned with a healthy smirk, only they have the good manners not to tell you. No, I’m afraid ‘the man [who is so dense] that he laughs last, laughs best’ has not necessarily won any triumph, although I’m sure he will according to his nature think that he has. 55
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:47 | # I’ll risk saying this: A (I do not say ‘the’) reason Linder behaves as he does is to win the battle of one upmanship that it has been here shown for all those with eyes to see is necessary to get many to listen at all. Wikitopian here implicitly contended there was nothing being (or worth being) contended at all, which is belied by the fact that he stopped by to gloat. For him as with many who stop by at OD, Hunter Wallace provides for them the ‘deep thinking’. ‘Deep thoughts’ which they are not intellectually capable of producing themselves but complement their prejudices and stroke their egos. ‘Deep thoughts’ that they are limited to the degree that they cannot see when said has been refuted, much less dented. Greg Johnson is apparently a cut above as he knows when he has been refuted, but certainly will not admit it, and responds snappishly. You ‘bright lights’ ask why I comported myself as I did at Takimag? Ask no longer. To penetrate thick skulls. (And if Takimag was fine just the way it was, then why do you applaud Spencer’s latest move? Another question I’m sure ‘intellectuals’ cannot be bothered with.) 56
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:15 | # No hard feelings I hope, Wiki. And none on my end. Onwards and upwards. 57
Posted by Red Mercury on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:29 | # What CC did to Takimag, Linder is now attempting to do to the entire WN movement. Did it work first time round? 58
Posted by Ivan on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 05:49 | #
My guess is (no offense to anybody, just my honest take on the question at hand): because Alex lives in 3-dimentinal world as opposed to almost everybody here who dwell in 2-dimentional world with the notable exception of Stephen Elliott (the equivalent of Friedrich Braun, GW is quite correct about that) who lurks in 1-dimentional underworld (this kike knows exactly what he wants). That’s why Alex doesn’t even bother coming here even after an official invitation to do so. Everything worthwhile reading in these forums has almost always something to do with Linder’s name and/or the ideas and controversies he manages to stir up so admirably. Why is that? Think about it. 59
Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:25 | # Dan Dare The current crop of onanists and poseurs who constitute the movement are hopeless, it is true. But still the White Nationalist movement in America grows day by day. There are individuals, organizations, groups, some with clout and influence, who scan the movement occasionally for signs of intelligent life. Up to the present, the scope of the question has been reduced to whether ‘water,’ even in component form, exists to support life, possibly intelligent life. Stephen Elliott 60
Posted by Stephen Elliott = Friedrich Braun? on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:55 | # Stephen Elliott = Friedrich Braun? (all of the bolding is mine)
61
Posted by American on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:47 | #
You are right about the racialist “movement” in America. It’s not going anywhere anytime soon. However, hopefully white Americans will become radicalized in the coming years as conditions in America start to deteriorate at a much quicker pace than they have been. But I don’t see how Britain or anywhere else is in really any better shape. 62
Posted by Ivan on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:22 | # Excellent analytical and detective work, Stephen Elliott = Friedrich Braun? You are an intelligent man. My definition of intelligence: An uncanny ability to detect the patterns in Nature and in the behavior of human beings. 63
Posted by Ivan on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:33 | # I believe it is pretty safe for you to change your pen name from ‘Stephen Elliott = Friedrich Braun?’ to ‘Elliott = Friedrich Braun!!!’ 64
Posted by Ivan on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:48 | # Now, when we know who Stephen Elliott aka Friedrich Braun is, think about the following. Why does he spend so much time trying to counter Linder’s ever growing influence, why is he worried so much about the emerging and obvious tendency of two positions, those of Linder’s and GW’s, to converge? 65
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:38 | #
I don’t really consider Britain on its own as an analogue for the United States; the economic and disparities are too simply large. A better comparator is the EU. On that basis I would claim the EU is in better shape than the US in two crucial respects. The first is demographics. The demographic condition of the US in 2010 has already deteriorated to a level well beyond the worst-case predictions for the EU by the end of the century. The situation in the US is further exacerbated by the continuing promotion by the managerial elite and acceptance by the masses of the Melting Pot Cult, which holds that band new Americans can be minted from even the most unpreposessing of sources. No such cult exists anywhere in Europe despite the efforts of the elites to create one. On the political dimension, after around a generation of grass-roots effort in Europe there is now in many countries at least a nascent nationalist movement which is starting to chip away at the foundations of traditional machine politics. There is at present no prospect of any similar political development in the United States. 66
Posted by Dasein on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:13 | #
I would also add that, though the EU is a cancerous growth, the degree of sovereignty of EU member states exceeds that of any US state (even Texas!). The EU most closely resembles James’ Laboratory of the States. There’s just that confounding foreign language variable. 67
Posted by Dasein on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:30 | # Stephen Elliott, like Braun, has the unusual habit of interspersing periods within acronyms. Braun is one of the only people I remember writing B.N.P. instead of BNP. http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/false_identity/#c77052 http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/and_the_winner_is/P100/#c76236 68
Posted by Dasein on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:42 | # With regards to a common piece of supporting evidence for Linder’s shunning within WN circles, i.e. his advocation of genocide, I am only aware of 2 thoughtful counter arguments: one by GW in a comment at OD and one by James on Giles’ show. Personally, I disagree with Linder’s position on genocide, in large part for the reasons advanced by GW and James (one could also add the historical example the Yemeni Jews). 69
Posted by American on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:41 | # Mr. Dare, I guess that it’s fair to compare the US to the entire EU. But I think that it’s best to compare the US to individual European countries. This is because the US is one country while the EU is made up of many countries. You are probably right that a case could be made that the US is in worse shape than the EU as a whole. Furthermore, a case could also probably be made that the US is in worse shape than several independent European countries. However, there’s not really a huge difference because: (1) I’m not extremely informed on European demographic trends. However, to my understanding many European countries will have a non-white majority at about the same time that the US has one. (2) European countries are too small for racial partitioning. Your only option is repatriation. The problem with this is that repatriation becomes extremely difficult once your non-white populations become large and have been in your country for several generations. America is large so secession/partition will always be an option. (3) Americans have free speech protections so unlike Europeans they can’t go to prison for saying “racist” things. (4) I’ve never seen any evidence that white Europeans are at present any more racially conscious than white Americans. (5) I don’t know why you say that the melting pot cult only exists in America. I’ve heard many Europeans make the same “diversity is our strength” arguments that Americans make to promote immigration. (6) Many European countries do have nationalist political parties. However, the US would probably have one as well if it had the same political system that you guys have. In America it’s basically impossible to create a viable third party of any kind. The Republicans and Democrats have a complete stranglehold. But your situation in Europe allows you to have many somewhat viable political parties, and not just nationalist ones. Despite this advantage that you have over us, however, it’s rather difficult to see how most European nationalist parties will become really mainstream at any point in the foreseeable future. 70
Posted by Boubacar Simms on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 21:50 | # The EU has a huge demographics problem, when you take into account how many of its current citizens are no longer fertile old people, while the fertile are usually non Europeans. Once the boomers die off in Europe you’ll get a more accurate picture of the demographics problem. 71
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 22:21 | #
Complete rubbish. The EU has a population two-thirds larger than that of the US in an area less than half the size. If anything, it is grossly overpopulated. There are many levers that could be operated to stimulate the domestic birthrate if and when necessary, which isn’t yet. Europe’s so-called ‘demographic crisis’ is a fabrication created by the charlatans of the immigration industry. 72
Posted by Boubacar Simms on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 22:35 | #
This is just stupid, it doesn’t even deal with the point I made in my post. The natives in Europe have a demographic problem, they’ve had below replacement birth rates for thirty years and their mean population is old. The people who’ve immigrated to Europe over the last thirty years have high a birth rate and a young population. For every one “native” 10 year old, there is three of four non native 10 year olds. That is a demographic problem! Even if you increase the birthrate tomorrow you’re still playing catch up three decades in the making. These non natives are going to start reproducing in the next 10 years, and the old natives will be dying off, then will get an accurate picture of what things really look like. 73
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 22:47 | # You are conflating two entirely separate issues: third-world immigration and the changing demographic profile of Europeans. The solution to the first is not to engage in a rutting contest but to stop more coming in and try to remove those already here. Taken as and of itself, the gentle decline of the native European population to a long term sustainable level is not a ‘crisis’. In fact it is something that is to be welcomed on a number of grounds, not least the increased quality of life that will ensue from a less crowded and more amenable environment. As and when the population has stabilised at an appropriately sustainable level (which might take a century or more) the native birthrate can be gently stimulated to maintain the population size and demographic profile most conducive to economic and social wellbeing. 74
Posted by Ivan on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:26 | #
This is the type of thinking I had in mind when I said that Alex lives in 3-dimentional world when the majority of the rest dwell in 2-dimentional world. Evidently abstract and short arguments don’t work well in the flat world. There is a clear need for longer explanations. Let’s see if I can do that. First of all, Alex does not advocate genocide. Genocide involves necessarily murder, at least if we look at each and every historical event that is known as a genocide, we’ll find that it involved murder. Alex does not advocate murder, he does advocate extermination of the Jews as a race. You can exterminate any ethnic group without a single murder of a single member of the group. Let me repeat that so that it can sink in your thick skulls: You can exterminate any ethnic group without exterminating a single member of the group, without any physical harm whatsoever to a single member of the group. Can you understand that? I guess not - it requires thinking in 3-dimentional space. If you still have hard time understanding that, think of what Jewish policies are doing to white race. Those policies are deliberate, do you understand that? Do you f*****g understand that? You might think that my reading of Alex Linder is wrong. You might think that when Alex says exterminate he means murder here and now. You are wrong. How do I know that? Simple. I listen closely to what Alex says, I do not count on what others say about what he said. If you don’t believe me check out the exchange I had with Alex on Final Solution in a VNN forum: http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=7160#comments Here are few excerpts from that thread Ivan: The whole point of my argument is that an across-the-board extermination (which is not the same as murder) is the only way to solve the problem for all time. (- Alex Linder) This argument sounds perfectly reasonable and compelling to me. ‘Across-the-board extermination’ is rather poor choice of words but the idea behind the argument does not sound outrageous either. It may sound paradoxical, but even the implementation of the idea can be carried out and it can be carried out absolutely humanely. Imagine for a second that the political power is taken away from them in all countries around the world. Then historians get together and document all the historical evidence for all the crimes committed by the tribe for the last 3000 years. And they make their case that there is no other reliable solution. Now the humane technical implementation of the verdict is really simple. 1. The members of the tribe can marry each other only. No interbreeding with any other race or ethnic group is allowed. Isn’t that what they wanted all this time? Alex: ‘Across-the-board extermination’ is rather poor choice of words (-Ivan) We exterminate rats and roaches. Jews are worse than rats and roaches. By exterminating them, which can be done peacefully, we are giving them better treatment than they actually deserve. But ‘exterminating’ does lump them in with their fellows. Alex: 1. The members of the tribe can marry each other only. No interbreeding with any other race or ethnic group is allowed. Isn’t that what they wanted all this time? Sure, that’s what I mean. There are many non-violent ways to solve the problem. Its not the same as mass murder, as liars lie.
That’s why Alex frequently snarls back to stupid opponents that they have reading comprehension problem. Don’t interpret Alex, read precisely what he says, his words are not random, his words are always carefully picked and they are thought out extremely well. He means what he says, and he says what he means. 75
Posted by Boubacar Simms on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:33 | #
I don’t think I am. This no longer is an immigration problem, it was an immigration problem thirty years ago when they first started coming. Today you have non natives who’ve been born and raised there, and are starting their own families. It’s not likely you’re going to get rid of them now.
That will just be a temporary solution, as I said above some have been there for 30 years, their children were born there, and now they are starting to have families. What is going on now didn’t start 10 years ago, it has been thirty years in the making.
It’s a crisis when the non natives are having three or four kids and the natives are having one or none. It’s hard to see the quality of life increasing when you have a system based on the taxing of individuals, and you want to decrease the number of tax payers.
Predicting the weather for tomorrow is difficult enough, to predict it in a hundred years from now is pointless. You have one side with overpopulation and standard of living, while the other side doesn’t give it a second of thought. The ones who don’t given a second of thought are probably going to win, albeit they will live in a much poorer and chaotic place. 76
Posted by Boubacar Simms on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:39 | #
This should read: Predicting the weather for tomorrow is difficult enough, to predict it a hundred years in advance is pointless. You have one side concerned with overpopulation and standard of living, while the other side doesn’t give it a second of thought. The ones who don’t give it a second of thought are probably going to win, albeit they will live in a much poorer and chaotic place. 77
Posted by MB on Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:36 | # Atta boy, Ivan. The eggheads seem to’ve abandoned this thread. Hmmm… 78
Posted by Ivan on Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:45 | # Dasein, Nothing personal, strictly business. My comment was addressed mostly to those who know exactly what I am talking about and still keep repeating the lie on purpose with a clear agenda like Hunter Wallace, Greg Johnson, Stephen Elliott aka Friedrich Braun, and their ilk. Post a comment:
Next entry: Giles, Baldwin and State vs Federal Representative Races
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by tc on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 00:45 | #
“it does not even begin to address the scale of problem that white America faces.”
...which must be - by the overwhelming evidence to have to expand to the “problem every White Community” faces. (Europe, North, South America, Africa, Australia)...and the minors - to me - but not to them. This has been my point all along.
Can we at least - pray - agree, that we are in an actual war of survival?
I will be honest, as I usually am in a public forum, to the point of my understanding of possible persecution: If we cannot agree I, personaly have no use for You. Do You understand that? I have no argument for You, that phase of possibilities is so over.
Moreso, I foresee, that You are/will be manuevered directly into my crosshairs. I know already, that most of You are not comfortable with being painted bright.
Are You sure you wanna play humpty dumpty? We now lack not only the kings…