|
|
|
A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards by Leon Haller A purpose of sites like MR is, or ought to be, the sharing of practical strategies to advance white EGI. Methods of dispute resolution in a White Republic, the ‘unencumbered self’ and its relation to race-liberalism or postmodernity, the existence of God, etc, are all interesting matters. But discussing them hardly directly aids our cause. Our primary task remains, as ever over the last half-century, mass racial awakening. Too few of our racial kinsmen are even aware that an intellectually respectable (or indeed any respectable) movement in opposition to white extinction exists and is growing. We must let them know we are out there - and each of us must do so again and again and again ... Repetition of one’s core message is the heart of mass ideological change. I started writing a comment on a Yahoo board earlier today (I have posted thousands of pro-white comments in mainstream places over the past dozen years), and ended up producing something longer than I had anticipated. My comment, which responded to an article on current political divisiveness, is hardly ideal (esp insofar as it was written quickly and ‘straight’, with no reflection), but re-reading it it seemed adequate for Americans to use to further the awakening process. Of course, I welcome the suggestions of others (perhaps MR could eventually have a file of repeatable comments for mass distribution depending on the article types at issue - American, UK, continental Europe, crime, general race, race science, immigration, etc). The point is for people to be ‘proselytizing’ to the very maximum extent. I don’t wish to belittle the discussions at MR or similar sites, but isn’t the ultimate purpose of those discussions to change the real world?
Comments:2
Posted by Matt Parrott on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:22 | # Leon, I think you move too rapidly to initiated speech and the sorts of hard decisions that only occur after one has either carefully reviewed and reflected on the data or has been initiated into the subculture. The typical reader of a comment thread is neither. The following is an attempt at a “bait” post written with the voice of a simpleton who’s second-guessing the prevailing dogma but who shares the lay readers’ concerns about being “racist”. It’s a bit less ambitious than yours, intending merely to contextually introduce and frame racialist concepts. It’s actually less ambitious than The Mantra, but I think I prefer it as a “conversation starter” because it doesn’t close on an explicitly pro-White/WN thesis and it invites the reader to respond. Context: News article featuring TNB, racial strife, etc… Comment: Not again! Look, I don’t want to infringe on anybody’s rights or even hurt anybody’s feelings, but why is the government forcing these communities with these problems on our communities? This probably sounds racist or whatever, but can’t we find some way (other than ritzy gated communities) to exclude these groups which seem to bring their violence, hostility, and depravity wherever they go? I guess that’s “segregation” and that’s supposedly bad, but isn’t the destruction of one neighborhood, school system, and public space after another bad, too? Indians get to have their reservations. The Chinese get China Town. Blacks get Detroit. Would it really be so bad if there were somewhere in this big wide open country where we could get away from this third world madness and simply mind our own business? Why are we the only people who are not allowed to mind our own business among ourselves? 3
Posted by Lew on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:45 | # Leon, This is an excellent suggestion. I can see myself using parts of both your comment and Matt’s comment. Matt, I like really your closer in that suggested comment. It reminds me of the logic in “the mantra” (Africa for Africans, etc.). But, by referencing Detriot, China town, etc., you put the emphasis on local settings rather entire nations. The langauge makes the idea of separation sound reasonable and makes it more concrete, too. 4
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 04:33 | # <h2>Hallertosis!</h2> The non-Jewish non-whites that Haller agitates against were either granted rights, or privileges, or were let in without inspection at the border, or allowed to legally immigrate, all for a purpose. The purpose was to undermine ethnic cohesion inside key nations and to occupy the people with troubles galore so as to distract them from focusing on worsening debt slavery and diminish the odds of a large mass of people acting in unison against the international bankers. Whereas Haller focuses on race, the conflicts people are occupied with also encompass gender, gender identity, sexuality, sexual identity, concocted political ideologies, etc. By misrepresenting the effects as the cause, and describing the symptoms as the disease, the Khazar Haller and others of his ilk, such as Matt Parrott and Lew, do their part in deflecting attention toward the wrong targets and sending people into blind alleys. Their co-workers/co-ethnics are simultaneously agitating Mexicans and blacks against whites, women against men, men against women, .... Keep at it as you will. No matter how much [Graham] Lister[ine] you folks gargle with prior to speaking, the fetid stench of Jewish machinations can’t be masked. 6
Posted by hi-freaking-larious on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 05:57 | # Hunter Wallace - who says that “Blacks Run America” - not AIPAC, not Ben Shalom Bernanke, not George Soros - but Negroes - is going all out, suggesting that any criticism of “Lew” must be OMG Jew Conspiracy!!! For the record - JRichards is almost certainly wrong about Lew, like he’s wrong about AE911Truth - but he’s right about most of it. That’s why $PLC shill Hunter Wallace (HW) has to chime in. Focus on the Negroes, not the Jews. Focus on ANYTHING - ANYTHING - just don’t say nothin’ bad about G-D’s Holy Jews! Haller complained yesterday about JRichard’s suggestion that “Andrew Berwick” - the purported author of the Norweigan massacre manifesto - “wasn’t real,” as if this was some sort of “Lizard People Conspiracy.” Has anyone yet asked why a supposed Norweigan manifesto was written in English, 75% of it a copy-and-paste from Jew neo-conservatives like “Fjordman” - using an English name like “Andrew Berwick” not even his supposed real name, “Anders Behring Breivik?” A manifesto for Norway - written in English, which mentions Israel and Jews more often than Norway and Norweigans? Anyone mentioning these obvious facts is attacked by the likes of “Catholic” Haller as “Lizard People?” Btw, JRichard, you are wrong about Matt Parrott. He’s not a bad guy. He is simply a) not that smart, and b) not that brave. As a 100% bona-fide Kosher Jew myself, I am constantly amazed at how dumb you goyim actually are. Line up to be our golems, goyim! As the “Andrew Berwick” manifesto says - which was TOTALLY written by the plastic surgery dude on trial now - all of Europe must fight the Muslims and protect Israel! All us Christians and Jews against the Muslims, of whatever race! And don’t forget to support Israel! http://www.burzum.org/eng/library/war_in_europe01.shtml Oh yeah, and Leon Haller is totally right, we need to PURGE Jewjority Rights from all the “anti-semites” and “conspiracy theorists” because that’s what is causing all these problems! Stand together, Jews and Christians, against the Muslims and Negroes! Eretz Israel from the Euphrates to the Nile! What better cause to lay down your life for, then for your Zionist Jew friend? Isn’t that in the Bible somewhere? Hey HW, congrats on getting all that publicity from the SPLC. You are a regular Francis Joseph “Frank” Collin (born Francis Joseph Cohen) now! Say hi to Youseph Al-Katab and Azzam the American! 7
Posted by Silver on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 06:29 | #
I think ending with some reference to “anti-white” is far and away the best invitation to further thought. There’s just no end of anti-white bullshit out there that a person can start paying attention to, and if he does start paying attention to it he is much less likely to consider it tolerable than someone who is “uninitiated” (who probably doesn’t like what he’s seeing but figures there’s nothing that can be done or that it’d be wrong to complain). With respect to 14W, at the end of the day, remember, Israel exists because of “anti-semitism.” As for Leon Haller, I think we can safely assume from this offering he’s not transitioning from a (successful) career in sales. I don’t know when the Mantra was first invented, so I might have my dates wrong, but I think it was about 2005 or 2006 (obviously later if the Mantra wasn’t invented yet) when I first heard the phrase “naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.” It wasn’t posted as part of the Mantra. It was just the exclamation point to a brief and general defense of white identity. I didn’t realize until years later that it was part of the Mantra. That phrase played on my mind for weeks (maybe months) afterwards, and I never forgot it. The reason is that I finally felt exposed. Until then I had felt bulletproof. I was always keenly attuned to any argument, any point, any position, any philosophy, any anything that even hinted at WN/racism, or that even hinted at potentially leading to WN/racism. And if I encountered one, I’d immediately denounce it as racist and begin laying guilt trips left, right and centre. Something like Haller’s post above? I’d be all over it—and judging by responses, successfully so. But not “naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.” That made me stop and think. I thought to myself, you know what? That’s exactly how I behave. And the rest is history. (Course, I remained highly suspicious of WN-types for a long time afterwards—indeed, I still am, highly; come on, there are kooks aplenty out there—but I could no longer deny the truth and morality of their core position, not to myself, and increasingly, not to others, either.) All that said, it’s not enough for people to merely “feel pro-white.” There’s also a need for policies that people can stand for and support. So Haller’s 12-point-plan is not entirely without merit. It’s just that it doesn’t have the makings of the sort of “core message” that can be “at the heart of mass ideological change,” not at this point in time. 8
Posted by Jonathan Bowden Is Dead on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:20 | # http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/jonathan-bowden-rip/ 9
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:07 | # Did Bowden commit suicide? The last I knew about this Nietzschean superman was that he was carted off to the funny farm. Odd how such self-styled Übermensch tend to be delusional, highly unstable nut-jobs - go figure! Oh well life goes on as they say even in the absence of the Gods that walked amongst us lesser beings. Did he leave a genetic legacy at all? I do rather hope not in his case! 10
Posted by daniel on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:09 | # Our primary task remains, as ever over the last half-century, mass racial awakening. Too few of our racial kinsmen are even aware that an intellectually respectable (or indeed any respectable) movement in opposition to white extinction exists and is growing. We must let them know we are out there - and each of us must do so again and again and again .. Repetition of one’s core message is the heart of mass ideological change. I have no objections to that part - provided that the sloganeer knows the score and sends the right message for mass consumption. Though I do not find “the mantra” particularly useful for me in my situation, but if it works for others, fine. I agree there can be other pithy phrases to neatly fit other circumstances - and to have them ready at hand is not a bad idea.
Nevertheless, and to my surprise (though I do not want to encourage the Jewish focus contingent here too much, because some are disposed to conspiracy theories and - in my opinion - otherwise counter productive argumentation - boring and unnecessary, at best; wrong and distracting from better, more credible arguments at worst), I must take issue to this part as not acknowledging Jewish agency and machinations enough:
1. STOP ALL NONWHITE IMMIGRATION
True, it is not the only take, E. Michael Jones has some legitimate things to say about the 1924 law from a Catholic point of view, but even he does not dispute Jewish machinations in the 1965 act. As far as collective actions on behalf of Whites, Metzger tends to disseminate some good practical advice as to the danger of such group activity - to FBI infiltration and so on. He and others among the so called monocausalists provide experienced and otherwise grounded advice as to how Jewish control and machinations in the area of law and courts in particular, but also the organs which shape opinion and legitimated action - media and academia; failing that politics and money; failing that, religion - will be the key obstacle to the reforms and legal actions that you seek. I am not a monocausalist. There are an array of causes to our plight. But to take the position that Jewish interests are not key is to ignore the facts. 11
Posted by daniel on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:16 | # Our primary task remains, as ever over the last half-century, mass racial awakening. Too few of our racial kinsmen are even aware that an intellectually respectable (or indeed any respectable) movement in opposition to white extinction exists and is growing. We must let them know we are out there - and each of us must do so again and again and again .. Repetition of one’s core message is the heart of mass ideological change. I have no objections to that part - provided that the sloganeer knows the score and sends the right message for mass consumption. Though I do not find “the mantra” particularly useful for me in my situation, if it works for others, fine. I agree there can be other pithy phrases to neatly fit other circumstances - and to have them ready at hand is not a bad idea.
Nevertheless, and to my surprise (though I do not want to encourage the Jewish focus contingent here too much, because some are disposed to conspiracy theories and - in my opinion - otherwise counter productive argumentation - boring and unnecessary, at best; wrong and distracting from better, more credible arguments at worst), I must take issue to this part as not acknowledging Jewish agency and machinations enough:
1. STOP ALL NONWHITE IMMIGRATION
True, it is not the only take, E. Michael Jones has some legitimate things to say about the 1924 law from a Catholic point of view, but even he does not dispute Jewish machinations in the 1965 act. As far as collective actions on behalf of Whites, Metzger tends to disseminate some good practical advice as to the danger of such group activity - to FBI infiltration and so on. He and others among the so called monocausalists provide experienced and otherwise grounded advice as to how Jewish control and machinations in the area of law and courts in particular, but also the organs which shape opinion and legitimated action - media and academia; failing that politics and money; failing that, religion - will be the key obstacle to the reforms and legal actions that you seek. I am not a monocausalist. There are an array of causes to our plight. But to take the position that Jewish interests are not key is to ignore the facts. 12
Posted by daniel on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:20 | # Moreover, it would seem the Republicans and their corporate interest in cheap labor are at least as responsible for non-White immigration (and deportation of industry and jobs) as are the Democrats. 13
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:30 | # @daniel Perhaps we should characterize this debate as between ultra-reductionist monocausalists versus the stratified, hierarchical and differentiated explanatory pluralists? Simplicity versus complexity in human affairs…hmm…I wonder which one reality as such follows? ‘Debate’ might be too high a term however for much of what goes on at MR. It’s more like an oblique confessional or a session of sublimated therapy. 14
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:22 | # @Leon Back on topic - for more psychologically mainstream (not antinomian WN types) but moderately well-educated, coventional folks do you think the communitarian versus cosmopolitan theme could be made into something useful? Obviously issues around democratic consent (or not) to such massive demographic changes and the bounded nature of all political communities are not ‘pub talk’ as such but isn’t important to break out of the self-constructed ghetto of WN in that the image of tattooed thugs shouting racial epithets does have a remarkable chilling effect both psychologically and politically for Mr. & Mrs. Average. Strange I know that most normal people do not embrace the self-styled ‘dangerous outsider’ self-conceptualization typical observed in classically understood ‘sub-cultures’ but there you go. Obviously conceptual issues around autochthony are very difficult in the American context (they are difficult enough to explain and make respectable in the ‘organic’ European context!). But what about ‘environmental’ themes - along the lines of: “isn’t modern America getting ever more crazy each year - culturally, socially etc., what ever happened to common sense? Can we really go on the way we are and trashing our society?” Basically the sustainability trope expanded and reformulated to take in social, cultural and natural resources. You know the simple notion that America can’t simply be a home to everyone in the world, there must be limits etc. The politics of limits is not a bad starting point - it’s a good small ‘c’ conservative trope. As an initial premise about human affairs most people would agree that there are limits to everything. 15
Posted by daniel on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:36 | # ‘Debate’ might be too high a term however for much of what goes on at MR. It’s more like an oblique confessional or a session of sublimated therapy. I can agree that the debate here should be elevated. You and Haller are right about that - while I maintain by contrast, however, that the occasional epithet and profanity do have rhetorical place, I do believe that ad hominem attacks should be kept to an extreme minimum. Being tough is one thing, but the personal attacks are tedious and counter productive by and large - there has been too much of it. I can deal with it but would rather not. I know that I have been guilty of this a few times, but I had my efficient reasons (believing I was under personal attack thinly veiled - which Haller may not have gathered when expressing regret over my comments. Still, in the broad view of the struggle, even exponents of focus on the J.Q. such as Linder, are not quite so simplistic. Duke, even less so. That is to day, I believe the charge of monocausalism does not have overall utility, but rather more occasional use as the proponents of that view are not necessarily so common. What I view as the more abstract problem are those who expound views which promote inter-(native) European fighting as oppose to alliance and cooperation. On this most important score, I particularly value yours and Haller’s commentary.
16
Posted by daniel on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:48 | # Ecology is always a valid angle - it has been mine for decades now - and should have popular appeal, yes. 17
Posted by Helvena on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:11 | # Daniel, I appreciate your sentiment on native European alliance and cooperation. And I whole heartedly agree with it as long as the alliance and cooperation is going in the right direction (that being Europe for the native Europeans with the least possible loss of life, ALL life). Remember there is a high degree of alliance and cooperation among lemming too. 18
Posted by daniel on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:35 | # Halvena - agreed. The only possible difference, a nuance, is that I do not pretend to care very much about non-White lives. However, I can agree that it is impractical and a tactical error kill them for the devil of it or to be deliberately sadistic.
19
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:45 | # @daniel Thanks for that thoughtful response and kind words (glad I’m not universally loathed just yet). But seriously calling things by their proper names is the start of wisdom. A person that thinks - in some quasi-ontological way - that there is only one answer and can only be one answer to every question is probably slightly unhinged and somewhat prejudiced (in the bad way of unfalsifiability) in how they conceptualize the world at large (to say the least). Mono-causal mania is one description - an unhelpful and totally blinkered fanaticism could be another. Let alone the everyday fact that reasonable people can legitimately disagree over how to ‘read the evidence’ without it immediately becoming an unpleasant psychodrama of betrayal and moral trustworthiness etc. Such behaviour (the toddler-like psycho-dramas etc., the bullying demands to conform to a particular view ‘or else’ etc.) and more importantly the attitudes generating these behaviours are very seriously deflationary to any serious and honest engagement with any complex subject, in any field of study. And such anti-social types then wonder why they are so marginal? Why ordinary - even just moderately civilised people - would rather not listen to them or actually have anything at all to do with such unreasonable souls? The dogmatic hectoring of opponents into bemused or exhausted silence is one way to stop an argument - it’s not a way to win one let alone persuade anyone that might be skeptical. What such rhetorical hectoring does allow for, at a psychological level, is to reinforce the dogmatic ‘true-believers’ to reconfirm just how righteous they are and how persecuted they are for their righteousness. Hence on the fanatics side, sadly we are not completely dealing with honesty grounded differences of interpretation of evidence - judgemental rationality and related topics - but a species of theology - a faith derived world-view. Everything must at all times and in all ways be the fault of X! (X being the devil, capitalists, communists, etc., - basically those people other there!) But the difficulty of such a view is that it denies ones own individual and collective agency. If someone told you that all of their problems were exclusively and completely the responsibility of someone else - some other agency at work - would you typically believe them? Infants and young children are by and large totally powerless but adult Europeans? Even in Hegel’s Master-slave dialectic the slave is not utterly powerless! Now I could be mistaken in that view but that’s the difference - I can admit that I might be wrong. Can the Richards tendency? Just on another issue - let it not be forgotten that classical Athens is the cradle of the political notion of autochthony (especially in Greek drama) and indeed Heidegger suggested it by translated into the term Bodenständigkeit to defend a more communitarian conception of nationalism in contrast to than the all too individualistic concepts at work within Anglo-Saxon notions of how political communities are formulated. Heidegger also had a profound (in my view) interaction with Aristotelian thought which pre-dates Being and Time. What Heidegger seeks to uncover in Aristotelian concepts as he engages with them is their own Bodenständigkeit, understood here as ‘indigenous character’. In other words, the meaning of concepts is to be traced back to the ground on which they originally stood. This basis is a concrete experience of phenomena, and this “basic experience is primarily not theoretical, but instead lies in the commerce of life with its world”.
Martin Heidegger - Basic Concepts of Aristotelian Philosophy (from lectures given in summer of 1924). See also -Phenomenological Interpretations of Aristotle: Initiation into Phenomenological Research. But this is off topic – look Richards is already dominating the discourse - so that’s the last I have to say on the matter. Sorry Leon. Please carry on with the topic at hand everyone.
20
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:01 | # @Helvena Well I’m glad at some level you support we native and authentically rooted Europeans in attempting to preserve the only true and beloved home in the world that is rightfully ours. Sensible and morally responsible people believe not in eliminating violence from human affairs (a totally utopian impossibility) but rather in minimizing not maximizing its place in human society. But back on topic yes? What precisely happens in the soon to be post-Western ‘New World’ is not the key concern for any European nationalist (using that term for the most ideological modest formation thereof to the more extremist variety). But Leon’s thread is essentially an intra-American one so as an American Helvena (perhaps I’m wrong forgive me if you are not) how in practical and rhetorical terms do you think you can win over the ordinary Mr. & Mrs. Average of Main Street to your world-view? You must have thought about that, yes? That’s what Leon is really asking about. Proximate mechanisms rather than ultimate causes. 21
Posted by Matt Parrott on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:02 | # Lew, I wish to thank you for helping me check myself last week. It was inappropriate of me to spit up a bunch of bile at that loser who lost everything. The whole reason I’ve invested myself so deeply in this cause is because I feel a responsibility of stewardship for my people…even if they’re gullible, self-defeating, and voted for Obama. I’m slowing down for a spell and re-centering to ensure that I don’t burn out or become another obstacle. 22
Posted by daniel on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:17 | # Posted by Helvena on April 26, 2012, 08:11 AM | # Daniel, I appreciate your sentiment on native European alliance and cooperation. And I whole heartedly agree with it as long as the alliance and cooperation is going in the right direction (that being Europe for the native Europeans with the least possible loss of life, ALL life). Remember there is a high degree of alliance and cooperation among lemming too. There is another thing that I would hasten to add, in agreement, I guess: Speaking of bad direction - White traitors are among our greatest problems - from the irresponsible plutocrats to the mudsharks.
23
Posted by Helvena on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:33 | # Grahmster said, “...win over the ordinary Mr. & Mrs. Average of Main Street to your world-view?” the same way I was won over. Honesty. People aren’t stupid, they’re trusting and in my world view that isn’t a bad thing. The reason I appear monocausitic to you is that people are so inodated with the jewish view of the world, I believe it is important to get them to question it which means question the talking heads (so many jews) they see on tele-verson, in the theatre and read. Focus on the jews and what they are saying and the whole matrix begins to unfold. I once listened to Milton Friedman give a talk on the merits of the Free Market. I started thinking this would be good for the Palestinians but then with three minutes to go in his speech he made an exception for Isreal. Bingo! Matrix begins to untangle. Don’t get me wrong, I think the big jew is perfectly happy to sacrifice the little jew to stay in the catbird seat. The little guy should think about that. 24
Posted by Matt Parrott on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:38 | # Silver,
While I personally believe that only a very radical “vanguardist” strategy will get us where we truly need to be, I believe there’s added value in outreach to mainstream persuadables, engagement with mainstream politics, and such. If I had to introduce a bullet list of things to push forward in the current context, I would go with something more like this… 1. Stop Birthright Citizenship 2. “Zero Net” Immigration 3. Blind Justice 4. Bark about Jews being Khazars 5. Free Association 6. Sallie Mae Holiday 7. Humble Foreign Policy 25
Posted by Helvena on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:39 | # Of course Daniel, no one can respect a traitor. We just have to make sure we understand who the traitors really are. Ezra Pound was branded a traitor by the media, the government and the lemmings but he was right. 26
Posted by Helvena on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:45 | # Number 4 exposes you Matt. No one need bark about anything just quietly point out the truth. 27
Posted by daniel on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:47 | # Graham, Personally, I have found Heidegger more useful than any other fairly recent philosopher. Though I’d like to give what you say a little more consideration, from what I gather from the first reading, I can believe that your interpretation is accurate and the text is significant - particularly important in that he extends Aristotle’s insights into what it means to be distinctly human and goes on to focus on what it means to be distinctly European. Surely an worthwhile project. I find the way Heidegger’s thoughts frequently correspond (in his own novel way) with passages from Nietzsche to be interesting as well. I have been told that one ought to read Nietzsche prior to Heidegger - and from what I have seen that is probably true. While I certainly agree that our primordial grounds in Europe are profound indeed (perhaps only second in priority to sheer survival) what do you think of the notion of our corporeal nation, our DNA, speaking of digging deeper into the experienced phenomenon? I see this as a way of reconciling the interests of x-pats and European persons abroad for whatever reason. I see that as a more realistic way of marshaling the notion of “community”, rather folks having serious interests common, because it has a slightly transcendent and flexible aspect. In a word, my experience with community building is not a positive one - the gossip, egos and weird personalities could kill anybody. My experience tells me that communitarianism and anarchism are more idealistic than adopting a tad of idealism in that regard - extending the class of Whites just a bit over time and space to give one’s self a break, if nothing else. It seems to work for me, anyway (whereas the notion of community did not - well and good for whom it does work).
28
Posted by daniel on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:59 | # Posted by Helvena on April 26, 2012, 09:39 AM | # Of course Daniel, no one can respect a traitor. We just have to make sure we understand who the traitors really are. Ezra Pound was branded a traitor by the media, the government and the lemmings but he was right.
29
Posted by hi-freaking-larious on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:27 | #
Remember, Parrott lacks even an undergrad education in chemistry, while thermite is something that the bright kids made in high school lab. Arthur C. Clark’s Third Law:
Not anymore. On the left, it’s cool to criticize Israel, and on the right, it’s cool to point out “cultural Marxists” as long as you do it with a wink and a nod. Even such neo-con websites as FreeRepublic.com allow nearly open criticism of Jews now. It’s simply the Hallers and Parrotts who play gatekeeper, screaming “monocausalist!” and “conspiracy theorist!” whenever someone mentions the kosher problem. Oddly, these goys play White Knights to the Jews, thinking that is going to distinguish them from the rabble. It does distinguish them but not in the way they think. The America taboo against discussing Jewish power is in its last days, thanks to, among other things, the Obama/Netanyahu fallout. Four more years! 30
Posted by jamesUK on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:47 | # So will Majority Rights be doing a post on Mr Bowden like other websites have? 31
Posted by British Activism on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:18 | # Whilst not quite being what is being proposed here, I have long thought that we do need what I once termed ‘a vault’ for our online debating. It was at least ten years ago when I first thought about this, but the task is far too intensive and would be far too narrow-minded for me to compile it myself, or for one person to know everything. I had stopped bothering entering into debates with the opposition years ago, because I deemed it a complete and utter waste of time. The likelihood of ‘conversion’ of these people is near to zero, the only thing that would be gained is whether anybody else is impressed or decides to agree with your point, or at the least, starts to question their own views. Sowing that seed of doubt is important though, it puts them on shaky ground. I decided that instead of wasting my time on people who clear and hardened opponents, it would be better for me to either A) try to sharpen up our internal discourse in the hope of pushing a cleaner and more honed version of Nationalist culture, or B) help us to win over the ‘winnables’ - people who either sit on the fence or those who are open to our concepts because they are not strictly of any solid ideology or belief. Whilst I still think that these things are important, I have to admit I have now lost the knack of debate tactics and struggle getting back to basics and fundamentals with the usual liberal canards we all see in comment sections. I believe this site has had some good results on the Telegraph, for example, but I am sure we have all seen and come across situations elsewhere where the same questions and points come up every time. Whether it be “what does race matter anyway?” “what is indigenous Briton? can you point me to a definition?” or “we had the slave trade and stole all their wealth” or whatever else these liberals usually play the game of. We have so much repetition of the same 10 or 15 things, or lines of thought, that it makes sense for nationalists and activists to get their heads together and actively hone down the perfect, or near perfect, solutions and responses to all these usual canards. Hell, it could even be formulated into some hi-tech flowchart or cloud diagram process so that - no matter which combination of arguments they are using - we can navigate neatly and accurately in response. I am not too frequent a commenter here, but last year I seem to recall there was a sticky on ‘snappy refutations’ or something. That kind of thing surely helps, if it did what it said on the tin. My idea would be much more elaborate than that though. Also, whilst mantras are all well and good in some situations, at other times I think you need to actually do a bit more spade work and win over the argument or ‘court’ a potential convert with the logic. Going on about “nobody is flooding non white nations” etc is not great for those kinds of debates. It is too much, too soon, for some people to handle. They could be worked in later if need be though. I wouldn’t wish to replicate ‘the mantra’, that is not the idea, but I do think there might be merit in many heads getting together and constructing or compiling the best points we have, the best facts, honing the most concise and water tight arguments, a site for ‘points of reference’ for when we might be stuck (or might forget a particular line of thought to include). Copy and pasting from it would be tempting, but for this, if it happens too much it would get repetitive and identified. It would perhaps be better as a data source which the users cribbed replies from and tailored them so suit their precise argument at hand. Inadvertently copying “as an American” if you are debating in Britain (or visa-versa) would be rather damaging if you are making out you are coming up with the rebuttals yourself. It is an idea that I have thought about on and off for years. Any thoughts? 32
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:46 | # Any number of liberal concepts can be used against liberalism (particularly multiculturalism - see the writings of Theodore Dalrymple for some examples). Personally I would think if one wants to potentially appeal to a new audience it would be best to totally rethink the tone, tropes, register, framing of the points and question one raises. Why? Because all of these aspects of language and communication trigger all sort of associations and in the case of anything vaguely WN highly negative associations. Now some may think that is terribly unfair - tough that’s the reality on the ground. So does one embrace a toxic brand and hope that eventually Mr. & Mrs. Average see past all the negative association and listen? This would be the purist approach - have a core support that is very narrow (but very deep/committed) and the gap between these people (that is ‘true believers’) and the average Joe would be rhetorically and ideologically maximized. Most everyday people would more or less be able to identify and pigeonhole where such purists are coming form. In general the potential audience for such outre fair (J-lizards the root of all evil, Holocaust revisionism/denial etc.) would be (and is) incredibly small. Alternatively by being far more flexible on secondary question of ideology and language used etc., one can confuse the almost auto-pilot nexus of negative associations being triggered in neutral audience members. Let me give an example - talk about the sustainability of environments - agree that at present American consumption norms are unsustainable - we (Americans) cannot possibly manage to be good environmentalists at our present level of population and consumption - hence we cannot push our population beyond its current limit without storing up massive additional problems. Talk about the moral responsibility to future generations. Be empathetic - America sadly cannot indefinitely be a ‘new home’ to the worlds huddled masses - those days are long gone. Global justice equally cannot be served by American society taking the ‘best’ of what the developing world has to offer in terms of human capital and in taking those people our policies unfortunately further impoverishes already very poor societies. On that topic speak of the notion that the only really progressive policy is not an ‘open door’ policy, but instead involves using the still considerable and extensive ‘soft power’ of America to build up the institutional and economic capabilities of developing nations thus promoting the welfare of those populations as an act of long-term self-enlightenment. Again there is a policy idea doing the rounds of a minimum global wage in the industrial and agricultural sectors. The idea is that for a relatively small cost (in terms of the total global economy) significant poverty reduction can be achieved in developing nations which in turn will reduce both legal and illegal migration (if people go from a $1 a day to live on to $2 a day etc., their standard of living will have significantly improved thus disincentivising people from entry into highly expensive and extremely high risk illegal migrations) along with protecting jobs at home - if ‘slave labour’ is no longer readily and unproblematically available to the global corporations then issues of outsourcing might be attenuated (why should American workers have to compete with what is effectively slave labour in the developing world etc.?). Anti-globalism is also a good trope. Now obviously people here might not believe a word of the above or think it’s all hogwash but ideas along these lines would in my view break the web of negative associations that must be overcome to gain a wide audience (along the lines of “well I can’t people believe people like that are interested in such issues - maybe they aren’t the awful people I automatically think they are”). Buying moral capital and being seen as decent, caring, responsible, trustworthy, mature and serious is key in signalling to another neutral or skeptical person that it’s “OK” to listen to what you have to say. Lower the ‘psychological costs’ for you audience as far as you possibly can. Not, I repeat, not raise them to be as ‘high’ as possible. This goes to my final point - all the great communicators in public life very carefully think about what their audiences ‘needs’ are and in tailoring their whole rhetorical strategy to that end. Not what they would like to get out of the process in terms of feeling good about ‘telling it like it is’ or some such. Political communication is not an exercise in solipsistic self-gratification nor a discourse that aims to be an inwardly directed, cheer-leading echo-chamber for the already converted to languish in. The mindset to be adopted is that of an advocate attempting to persuade a neutral jury of the merits of one’s case - that is what all political communication is about - getting ‘on board’ people that otherwise would not be. Expanding and maximizing support not preaching to the choir. Facts and figures by themselves never win a political argument - most people have exiguous informational resources and are not really interested in them as such - all successful political rhetoric is about the stories we choose to believe (through what optic are such facts perceived?). The narrative matters immensely (in the full sense of that term). P.S. I didn’t know that the various branches of US elites (corporate, media, legal, academic, political etc.) were and are exclusively J-lizards. Hmm I tend to see quite a few home-grown 100% European scumbags when I examine the same strata in European societies. I guess the USA really must be a de facto Israeli colony.
33
Posted by Helvena on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:19 | # @ British Activism, you might take a look at this: http://www.diesirae.cc/ “Lower the ‘psychological costs’ for you audience as far as you possibly can.” - You’ve hit on a good idea Grahamster! But once you’ve got them hooked you still have to reel them in and if they detect any dishonesty they won’t trust you again. Grahamster, you don’t need exclusive control to excerise control, you only need enough to swing the vote. You seem to be stuck on the words, exclusive, all, total, etc. I’m afraid there are many gaps in your knowledge but we’ll work on it. 34
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:34 | #
Yes. Im glad Im not the only one. There was indeed - though it wasnt sticky, its now been washed way downstream. You can still find it via the search at the top of MR. And Im afraid many of the refutations were far from snappy as well, too much meandering. Anyhow, Ive bleated on at various times that such a resource would be useful. We dont need another mantra, not that Im knocking those guys, they are doing a bang up job and I repeat bits of it myself. But we need easily digestible retorts, refutations to common liberal axioms. The point is to present a consistent undermining of their position. They make one of their simplistic assertions and we cut it down consistently. We may not change that person but to any observer it should be clear who is right and who is winning and who is floundering in a hopeless inarticulate mess. So, I should probably get started (not the first time Ive said that). Needs a dedicated page where the polished, edited (and one hopes snappy) refutations are kept and that page needs to be sticky. Plus a thread where we can thrash them out, make suggestions amendments etc Ive got an informal collection in my head, Ive never actually written them down and worked on them. That would be a good start. 35
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 06:23 | #
Straw man. English is the most widely spoken language in the world, not because Englishmen dominate but simply because language is a meme. 36
Posted by Bill on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:12 | # Here’s something from the New Statesman, I’m not sure this thread is the right one but it’s too interesting to be lost in the downstream (Lurker) graffiti log jam.
Read all. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2012/04/who-are-breivik’s-fellow-travellers * My emphasis 37
Posted by daniel on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:03 | # Graham, you make some good points: Raising the wages in the third world a little and with it, disincentives to export jobs might help. Though it sounds a bit too long term a project and I am not sure other factors would have us being race-mixed into oblivion anyway. As I have said or the ecology bit, it is always a good angle and you express it rather eloquently - it needs to be connected with population. Nevertheless, don’t be surprised if you find Jewish interests have prohibited that connection - or that it has been prohibited as a result of Jewish interests pandering to women. You raise the matter of audience and the appropriate rhetoric for them so as not to turn them off. There are two or three rejoinders that need to be made in response to your concrete prescription for an appealing presentation. First, you talk about the importance of taking your audience’s needs into accoutn. The audience here, at MR, needs to be vetted to make sure that it sufficiently recognizes the Jewish question. That is a different matter from the proper content for addressing other audiences. Second, I do not believe that it is White Nationalism per se turns the general population off. Rather, it is platforms that some try to associate with White Nationalism: 1. Nazism, Hitler, Third Reich: some explanation of the why of the Nazi view and actions, on occasion, would be valid, but not nearly to the extent that some in the struggle take it, to where they are viewed as entirely right, entirely victims and everyone who opposed them entirely bad. I have been shocked by the dirt poor rhetoric by some of the Nazi advocates. I do not believe that it is even good for them. If it is to be competent to our situation, discussion of the why of Nazism should be accompanied with the views and valid reasons why other Europeans opposed them. More, Nazism is a valid term, to distinguish a rogue regime from national socialism (which it was no longer after the night of the long knives), from Germans and German nationalism, which are fine. 2. Holocaust. The rhetoric has been handled very badly. If talked about at all, it should be in terms of why the Jews were looked upon as so destructive that they were responded to as such. Denial is a counter productive waste of time - it looks really bad to the casual observer. It would be better even to go with an argument to the effect of, “the Germans were in so much pain at the time that they’d probably wished they’d have gotten more than 6 million.” 2. Scientism - long story, but I empathize completely with those who are put off by the right-wingers who go into these elitist arguments completely oblivious to the fact that they are largely unnecessary - we do not want to die and do not want to live with non-Whites. It does not need to be a matter of who is better or worse (completely non-qualitative arguments) and the can-of-worms that dichotomy opens-up so stupidly. 4. Conspiracy theories - mostly unnecessary. For example, we don’t need 911 to know that Jews are a big influence. Even if Arabs did it alone, they still did it because they were angry about America’s connection with Zionism. Jewish causality does have some equiprimordiality to it. 5. KKK - obvious. 6. Skinheads and confederate flag waving - it depends upon the audience. We need tough guys. This leads to a point that I want to make. There is an assumption that the use of epithets and profanity necessarily turns people off. I disagree. That is a matter that really depends upon the audience. For example: for me, personally, when I hear someone use the word nigger, I view them favorably as someone who has experience of them and has the judgment to have come to the right conclusion as to how to sum them up. I am put off by those who try to prohibit the word - who does it make more comfortable if we do not say nigger? Mudsharks? I want to make them comfortable? Its true the legal situation in Europe and England is such that it is not merely a matter of personal preference. But that brings me to another point.
I didn’t know that the various branches of US elites (corporate, media, legal, academic, political etc.) were and are exclusively J-lizards. Hmm I tend to see quite a few home-grown 100% European scumbags when I examine the same strata in European societies. I guess the USA really must be a de facto Israeli colony.
But, among the elite of the six realms: Banking, Politics, Media, Courts/Law, Academia, Religon… Jews tend to be the most organized, interested in themselves collectively (and not in Whites) and active in deliberately pursuing anti-White agendas. Nevertheless, you are right. Tact and diplomacy is necessary of course. I believe a focus on our interests as Whites and then letting the antagonists come as they may to be addressed, as need be, may be a good way to avoid the clumsy rhetoric of hitting people over the head with the J.Q., to seeming like the aggressors and to falling into and all too easy associations with Nazis and other legitimately pejorative associations - which I for one, want no part of. Sorry to the German nationalists, as it is not about you, but that particular regime which I maintain was flawed and over the top.
38
Posted by British Activism on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:04 | # @Helvena - Thanks, I will take a look when I get home. @ Lurker, I have written some extensive refutations of some things in the past, I may put a link in later when I get back to base - but they are certainly far from snappy. They might be a decent start though, even if they are not bulletproof. @anybody else, I have made an attempt at debating some points here in this mail blog article under the name of Simon. http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2012/04/bundling-bearded-windbags-on-to-jets-wont-sold-anything.html#comments to another poster named Joshua. I am not asking anybody to get involved, as it would probably make things worse, lol, but if anybody has the time to read our joust so far and recommend where I might be going wrong - or how to deal with his particular line of thought - it would be handy. (There are only about four jousts each, so far). This is because I remember coming up against these kinds of people all the time, where you don’t know where they stand. Doing this kind of thing can become a bit of a skill, one which I find it hard to get the right balance with. The mail comments are extremely picky on ‘moderation’ and painfully slow to appear. I might respond to parts of his latest one later today, before it giving up:
I have already an idea on how to reply to some of these points, but any advice on this site - after reading my earlier responses and seeing the context of the argument - would be appreciated.
39
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:18 | # BA - Ive linked to your blog.
So true!
40
Posted by daniel on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:28 | # Haller, taking a step back, I can see that I was a bit knee-jerk. You were trying to lay out arguments that might work for the White masses in laying blame on the democrats and so on. However, I responded as such because I see the way that you are arguing as going back into traditional conservative lines of rhetoric that have not only obfuscated the sources (see, plural, not monocausal) of the problem, have not only failed repeatedly to solve them, but have served to exacerbate them. Of course I can agree that tact and discretion can and should be used with regard to slogans and receiving audience. Nevertheless, it seems you and Graham are a bit too ready to see Jews as Not a problem at all. Graham, what about the banking square mile of London? Is there no Jewish influence in England? Have they had zero influence on non-White immigration to England? 41
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:24 | # Thanks for the comments. I sent this earlier to GW. He posted it when I am in the middle of a very busy schoolweek. Will respond late this evening (Friday) or Saturday. But, this is why I fight, and the kind of thing (ie, nonwhites terrorizing, persecuting, and dispossessing whites) we should be worrying about, not Jews, lets alone ... “bankers”(?!?): Prison gang-rape is only the most extreme example of coercive racial integration as a form of totalitarian control. More to follow. (PS - I’m aware of the JQ; I purchased MacDonald’s evolutionary trilogy on Jewry at very expensive prices back in the 90s.) 42
Posted by British Activism on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:29 | # @Lurker, thankyou very much. I have an article there somewhere called ‘some refutations’, which collected together a swathe of replies I put forward against a range of liberals who climbed out of the woodwork when the Tram Lady thing kicked off. They are long, I think somebody in the comment section said it amassed nearly 40 pages of PDF when they chose to save it. In case anybody is interested, or in case the comment does not make it through, here is what is currently waiting in moderation:
Are these kinds of jousts really worth the time and effort? I cannot seem to make my mind up whether I should try and get back in the saddle and pump out this kind of stuff (whether it be right or wrong) or spend my ‘activism’ time more wisely within the sphere of the “near-to-beginner” “already open or already converted” groups, so they do not get washed away on populist claptrap or syphoned off into different pockets that ultimately do us no good. To be completely honest, I am pretty much ready for packing the whole lot in - and have been for the last year or so. It has been an important part of my life for the last ten years, hence my ligering on. But I often have to ask myself what the point is now that things are so far gone, and whether it is worth wasting my life trying to win over commentors or readers in this kind of painstaking way! It seems to be a grain of sand on the beach of life. (ps, is this website going to be technologically upgraded at some point in the near future? It always reminds me a bit of the old Amren site, where you could not edit your posts etc!).
43
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:29 | # Well let me put it this way. There is both a supply and a demand element in an exchange, a push and pull effect. Thus exclusively blaming one’s problems on some outside force seems both a recipe for political quietism (well they – the nasty people – are ‘all-powerful’ so what on Earth can we do?) and a general evasion of moral and political responsibility. Let me put it like this – an alcoholic tells you its all the fault of the local bottle shop that he’s a drunk. “They told me it would be fine” he says, “they sold me the booze really cheaply” he says etc., yes OK the owner of the bottle shop might be a irresponsible, immoral scum bag for selling his product to an alcoholic but does the drunk have no responsibility at all in this situation? Is the state of affairs only the fault of the shop owner? Or say that one’s immune system is weak and perhaps suffering from some sort of auto-immune syndrome and the patient exclaims that all the pathogens in the world are really dangerous – perhaps so but then the patient tells everyone – well we need a pathogen free world! Sorry that’s not a realistic option – why not focus on what can be changed – the internal reasons behind the weak immune system – strengthen that side of the dynamic then the pathogens will be much less effective. Look all this wailing like babies about ‘cultural Marxism’ and the like is pretty pitiful. Why? It’s like someone saying “You nasty people with ideas that I don’t like stop talking about them now because it’s not fair” as if those ideas are simply going to disappear if one wishes hard enough. No absolutely not – there is no world in which liberal or ‘cultural Marxist’ ideas do not exist – it’s a question of their saliency or not. People are not at gunpoint compelled to be hyper-liberals just yet are they? So are such ideas so robust that they cannot be critiqued and shown up for the half-baked nonsense they are? And if so one need to win the battle of ideas and rhetorical narrative game – or are they really so robust that they are immune to cogent criticism thus one has to enter into the moral turpitude of eliminating people instead (in the vain folly of thinking that somehow makes disagreeable ideas go away forever!). Daniel - Dan Dare wrote an excellent series on the political and policy history of post-War immigration policy in the UK - J-lizard machinations are not much in evidence - remember the USA is not the world. H-baby yes you repeat your banal ‘talk honestly’ – about what precisely, too whom, in what manner? Where to buy aluminum foil cheaply perhaps? Those are the questions (not about tin-foil supplies lol) that everyone seemingly will not or cannot even start to answer. They are not trick questions. Merely whining about the conspiratorial like machinations of the ‘evil ones’ online isn’t doing politics - and if you want to think about such issues, think about coordination problems as to why particular interest groups might be more effective than others with regard to intra-societal inter-group competition. Talking about the efficacy of coordination is the right side of sanity, talking about the ‘all powerful, ongoing conspiracy’ is very much tin-foil hat territory. And even if you don’t think it’s loony tunes stuff then Mr. & Mrs. Average very much do (most people would say the idea of the ‘non-reality’ of a certain Norwegian mass-murderer - of mainly European teenagers let’s not forget - is very much insane/fruit-loop country). Well OK outside of the USA anyway. Conspiracy talk of every variety seems second only to Jesus talk as a favoured subject across the pond. What’s the percentage of the so-called adult population of the USA that claim to have had an alien probe? Maybe that really is the source of all your problems - an unbelievably credulous and ignorant general public? 44
Posted by British Activism on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:37 | # Why is it always the case that after you have submitted a reply to somewhere where you cannot later edit it, you realise you dropped a bollock? lol. I had originally written that his ‘remarks were not unambiguous’ - or something like that - but I had to re-word the thing to fit under the required 500 words, and have now ended up with saying his words were unambigious rather an ambiguous! Kinell. Never mind. I might have to drop in a new line to clear it up. 45
Posted by British Activism on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:48 | # On second thoughts, I think was right the first time. Unambigous is clear! I think I need to swallow a dictionary for my evening meal tonight. 46
Posted by Bill on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:00 | # British Activism White tolerance is white suicide. (What do you do when the tolerable become intolerable?) The liberal charge of white racism is white suicide. (Prostrate and disarm oneself before the accuser, grovel for forgiveness for being born white.) And yet, hundreds of thousands of brown skinned people are slaughtered by liberalism in the Middle East! White non discrimination is white suicide. (Little old ladies get strip searched at the airport) The whole liberal construct of political correctness is a demand for white suicide. Mass Immigration (Multiculturalism) allied to political correctness, is the chosen weapon of the Cultural Marxist to destroy the host nation’s identity and its people. I have not yet seen online, or anywhere else, how this objective will be achieved. (Other than by miscegenation) Orchestrated clash of civilisations is high on the list. Affirmative action is white genocide. Redistribution is white genocide. I reckon only a minute portion of whites have the slightest clue what’s afoot despite millions being hypnotised into cognitive dissonance. We’re the product of generations of liberal media influence, who saturate our lives with culture distorting opinion and propaganda. Can you blame them? The rabbit hole is deep indeed. In my lifetime, the media has made what was once unthinkable into present day reality. Pure science fiction. I long coined the term upside down world before Melanie Phillips! Liberal political correctness denies whites the utmost fundamental natural right of defending oneself, it trusses them up like an oven ready chicken. Hey, ref! That’s not fair. Liberalism is a religious suicide cult for white only. Liberalism will always need a scapegoat oppressor and perceived victim. If it comes to pass whites succumb, who I wonder will be the next in line when they’re gone? I long ago ceased trying to influence or inform people I know of what the end game is of all what’s going on around us, I cannot claim even one success, not that they’re hostile to the idea, it’s just that they do not understand what I’m talking about. No matter how simple my approach. The media success in cowing the populace into paralysis is awesome. Hitchens is part of this deception and personally I wouldn’t waste keystrokes on him, the Mail itself of course, is a huge part of the problem. The whole liberal project is unsustainable and is only kept afloat by the media’s regime of propaganda and distortion, all under the umbrella of hedonism and infinite consumer choice a plenty. This is all coming to an end as we speak, how long it will take is anyone’s guess, but when it does tolerance will be in short supply. Peak tolerance one might say? Personally I wouldn’t bother with Hitchen’s and his blog, (but I used to.) The Mail, Hitchens and his blog, like the rest of the media, have had to react overtime to the bloggers pushing of the the immigration concern envelope, they’re a long way away from where they started. Progress has been made and continues to be made. Whether it will translate into voter political reaction and when is hard to say. A strategy that might work on the tabloid blogs is perhaps a team of say three (of our persuasion) might have a conversation on a thread among themselves. This overtime, could attract an audience of interested bystanders, it will certainly gain the attraction of the resident trolls. The thing is, ignore the trolls completely, and continue the conversation as though the trolls weren’t there. There seems to be an element of trolls resident in every tabloid thread of what is being discussed here, ignore them I say. Why waste time on them? Keep discussing among the three, which will (hopefully) shut the disrupting trolls out in the cold. Keep it short and simple BA. Good hunting. Apologies for being disjointed. PS Anyone know who the prolific poster Guest is at the Telegraph? His comments never seem to get published. But hey! he keeps trying. 47
Posted by British Activism on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:09 | # Thanks Bill. It gets hard to ram these things home to people, doesn’t it? We have spent years, often decades, learning and understanding what we believe to be going on and indeed ‘why’ it is being done - others have not. They are either ‘knowing’ opponents of ours, or so wrapped up and doey eyed over the prevailing orthodoxies pumped through society since their birth that they cannot compute any rejection of those values or concepts without having a short-circuit. The hardest ones I have had to deal with are the ones who throw out a complete ‘curve ball’. Like, for example ‘what does it matter of whites are minority or not’ or ‘what does it matter if this happens or that happens’ ....because…‘it does not mean anything to me’ and it is ‘not important’ etc. It is like trying to have an argument about what colour paint you think the new factory doors should have as part of its corporate identity, with a massive argument raging between the rights of it being painted red or painted blue, then somebody throws in the grenade that says “we shouldnt even have any doors”! How can you argue with somebody who doesn’t care what you are arguing about? lol. Don’t they care, or are they opposition, or are they being disingenuous, or are they youngsters who don’t know what you’re on about, - I struggle to tell sometimes. Like you, I had given up. I like to think I have influenced some people or changed their minds - but I have nothing in particular as evidence that I have chalked up a rack of converts either. I thought it was better I spent my time trying to somehow ‘improve’ nationalism and our rhetoric and internal culture, than argue with hardened leftists or people who really couldn’t give a toss either way what happens because they are either brainwashed or too selfish. I gave up on the mail years ago. I never used to get anything through the bloody filters. It was ridiculous. It was the same for the Express. A few sites have since gone to ‘discus’ or ‘open-id’ style comments, which has made it a little easier to slip things in - but I am both dubious about whether to bother, and dubious because I am a bit rusty after preaching to the converted for so long. I have no sense of balance some times. Your idea of a tag team to populate an article comment section is a new one on me. It sounds pretty feasible on sites where the comments are pretty rapid and fluent. The Mail blog is awful. It is slow, heavily moderated, word-limited to 500 words, non-editable, it is a real chore. I don’t think it could be done on sites like that. I have done the best I can with this guy so far. He has come back with a bit of a truce at the moment, but due to the time-lag, he won’t have seen the one I posted up above here! I have now responded to his latest one, and I have suggested that I will not be bothering there much longer. It is both because of the nature of the place, and because I have had enough of this joust and cannot be bothered anymore. I don’t think that he is the fully fledged anti-white idealist I might have had him pegged as. The conversation is dying out anyway. It just got me thinking that if we are to take part in this kind of games - there are much better examples - we should really try and get it nailed down to near perfection as we can get, something suitable for all levels. 48
Posted by daniel on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:46 | # Another association White Nationalism doesn’t need: 7. Bible thumpers 49
Posted by sk on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:52 | # http://whitegenocideproject.com/beefcakes-bootcamp-episode-1-intro-to-the-swarm/ Beefcake explains a repeatable message so well anybody can understand it. He does so in a short amount of time. 50
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:28 | # Another Dr. Eigenvalues Listerbag flew past my window!
The reason they weren’t in evidence is Danny boy (and you) didn’t want to find any. And I can well believe this is typical of your “scientific” approach. All the data that fits, right? You and the Hadley CRU… But let’s tip the rock back just a crack and peep under it. The Principal Private Secretary of Winston S. Churchill, Clement Attlee and WSC again in his second government was Sir John “Jock” Colville. Now Jock not only had a Jew in his woodpile, he had a huge Jew. This particular Jew was a Rothschild heiress from *the* Rothschilds. Just one of the many maggots lurking at the center of power for anyone willing to look. Go back to shoveling your manure pile, Dr. Eigenvalues Listerbag. 51
Posted by Helvena on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:02 | # Grahamster, LOL, I’m getting you worked up aren’t I ole boy. You’re dropping you’re mask. The erudition is leaving you (never thought it was natural) and you’re returning to the lower middle class from whence you came. You can take the boy out of the country but you can’t take the country out of the boy. Hahahah! Oy Vey!! A word of advice sweets, just be honest (a jew at a porkchop sale). 52
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:21 | # @Ex-Pro et al. Whatever - nice to see you embrace civility! First it wasn’t my articles on the genesis of UK immigration policy so if you think they contain serious errors then please bring them up with the author. I’m sure he would be willing to discuss the issues with you. As for the character you discovered - fine I’ll take it a face value but do you really think government policy is ever really decided on the whims of one person? Have you read about how politics and policy formation actually occurs? There tends to multiple actors involved, especially in the UK system - but even in the US system the President has to successfully carry with him other political actors to be effective. Returning to the theme of the OP - Mr. Haller was, I believe, wanting to spark a debate about the practical aspects of political life - namely how one rhetorically persuades others that you have something serious and sensible to say and that might, just might, facilitate a change in their outlook. Now historically politics contains both elements of coercion and consent but overt coercion is not generally invoked in the present political life of the West. So one can I suppose have any number of proposed solutions to the problems of the modern age. One might embrace radical anti-democratic ideologies (they seem to involve costumes generally and ideas of ‘total war’ etc.). One might eschew politics as such in the ideology of apocalypse - that is premise that some disastrous and catastrophic event will ‘reset the rules of the game’ to positive effect (however that may be defined). I believe one of your things Ex-Pro is ‘micro-communities’ which may or may not be tied in with such apocalyptic visions. This ‘ideology of apocalypse’ generally seems to me a despairing form of anti-politics - certainly more akin to some species of theology. Now many may embrace either of those options or even some combination thereof but why not be emotionally and intellectually honest about it? I think both are deeply flawed as political ideas and if that makes me an oddball or persona non grata so be it. Or one can have some trust in politics (as understood in its fullest and deepest meaning) to be the engine of dynamic collective change within political communities. Human history is not static - few people say 20 years before they happened would have, in precise detail, predicted the French revolution, the fall of Communism etc. It’s a rather narrow and ahistorical outlook to think that the doxa and praxis of one age is fixed for all time. But that last view might involve some reading in political history and theory which obviously is all twisted ‘Khazar’ poison along the lines of Thucydides, Cicero, Machiavelli or even Schmitt, yes? Anyway I’ll let Mr. Haller comment on the quality of responses thus far and the success of his exercise. That the commentariat of MR don’t like me isn’t really the point now is it? P.S. just further to my comments about understanding the needs of ones audience - much of politics is based around empathy and moral imagination - why and how did the person(s) I’m addressing come to be, in my view, honestly mistaken about the matters at hand? Let’s assume we are not dealing with extreme and intellectually dishonest ideologues. How then can one gain the sympathies of the honestly mistaken? Honey catches more flies than vinegar. It’s a good exercise to try to understand the honestly mistaken persons viewpoint from ‘within’ their present world-view and try to work out what common ground, however small, could be established as a bridge to initially finding some point of agreement that could eventually be expanded upon and/or the basis for them changing the optic through which they politically interpret the world. Cumulative seduction works far better than hectoring in many areas of life. So on this point why not, just a ‘thought experiment’, try to work out the best ‘progressive’ case against multiculturalism, globalization, the hollowing out of national communities etc. Both rhetorically, philosophically and empirically there are some decent ones I believe. Everyone knows the ‘traditional’ WNish tropes but they seem to have very limited appeal - time to really think intelligently ‘outside the box’ perhaps? 53
Posted by Silver on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:48 | # I’ve rarely spoken so honestly (or arrogantly) on this blog, but reading the commentary on this thread, something impels me to announce what a pack of miserable, pathetic, laughable wankers I consider you all. And I piss on you as I laugh at you, because only now—think about this—only now, after fifty long years, have you reluctantly hit upon the one approach that stands any hope, any hope at all, of winning the support of the masses given the conditions under which you’re forced to operate (conditions both present/political as well as those resulting from historical momentum). The reason why isn’t difficult to understand. Whites who seek out information on race and racial politics and who, having found it, stay interested in it typically do so for two reasons: to learn ever more about how supreme/superior they are; and to learn ever more about just how completely, totally and utterly horrible everyone else is; combining the two resulting in some of the most blinding, animalistic rage and bottomless despair ever known by man. That such people subsequently lose all ability to communicate effectively with their countrymen follows as surely as night does day. Yet you have persevered with the same tired rubbish that barely one percent of one percent of people have any interest in for fruitless decade after fruitless decade, accomplishing nothing more than assuring that upcoming generations of racial activists follow in your failed footsteps. Nevertheless, the racial cause is just; racial separateness (be it across cities, counties, countries or continents) is a superior social arrangement; and the political action necessary to secure racial interests is, at a minimum, morally plausible. It’s with this in mind that I participate in racial discussions.
Claims by people that they “just can’t see” at all what you’re worried about should never be taken at face value. The safest assumption is that it’s precisely because they can see what you’re worried about that they claim not to be able to see it. Often times they can see it only too well, but are worried about what you have in mind to do about it. It’s important to bear this in mind otherwise you can very quickly find yourself lead astray into minor disputes of little real importance. With that out of the way, the best response to the above line of argument to demand that he justify himself, for he is the one supporting policies that will lead to white extinction (or ‘genocide’ if you prefer). It’s not a matter of “if this country… etc,” as though it were a question of rainfall on the morrow, which may or may not occur. White extinction is being caused by government policy, by human agency. Therefore the question is why does he support those policies? Why does he insist that white dispossession and extinction must be made to occur (or be hastened)? What pressing need is there to pursue such policies? Why is it so necessary? If he believes that policies that will dispossess whites must be pursued, no matter what his reasons are, what makes it so wrong of you to oppose him, to prefer instead, that rather than be wiped from the earth, whites continue to live on? Why is it wrong to desire to live on? This may not sound like much, but those who indignantly pursue, well, I’ll use your term “genocidal” policies, do so while feeling morally unimpeachable. Their hearts are pure but yours is poisoned. Tell them this. Draw the distinction for them. And then turn it on its head. As far you as you can tell, it’s your own heart that is pure, and the hearts of those who would pursue a course of needless wanton destruction whose hearts are poisoned. By itself, this isn’t much, but, in my view, as moral racialism gains traction an increasing number of “genocidalists” can be expected to begin conceding the moral case because it reverberates too loudly for them to ignore. Fewer and fewer will be able to comfort themselves with nervous but dismissive laughs. It’s in this manner that the present anti-white status quo could see a Soviet-style no-one-saw-it-coming sudden collapse (finally ushering in WNs’ long-awaited opportunity to assert themselves more forcefully on the political scene). 54
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 01:28 | # <h2>Silverstein!</h2> Silverstein gloats and pisses on MR commenters for the “pack of miserable, pathetic, laughable wankers” they are, himself excluded. His stated reason is that “after fifty long years, have you reluctantly hit upon the one approach that stands any hope, any hope at all, of winning the support of the masses.” The real reason for his exuberance is that the website owner is either unable or unwilling to remove Jewish filth from vomiting, urinating and defecating at MR, a mere website… how could this person or anything he represents hope to retard immigration or send anyone physically back? The “one hope” is no hope. Democratic elections or voting in ignorance have nothing to do with the predicament American whites find themselves in. This has been well-learned at the ballot box. Voting democrats into power in 2008 did nothing to stop engagement in foreign wars. Punishing the Democrats in the 2010 elections likewise failed. A new war, an attack on Libya, was added and a sham withdrawal of armed forces from Iraq effected as private contractors remain and armed forces remain in the vicinity. Support of the masses for electoral reasons that Silverstein would like us to have means little when power isn’t wielded by politicians but by an unelected fifth column lead by international bankers serving Jewish goals. The “one hope” stems from an entry by a particularly vile Khazar, which misrepresents symptoms as the disease. Other Khazars chime in for a similar purpose. Silverstein, like the super-vile Khazar Lister and fellow Khazar Uh, even gives us an invented psychology of the people he despises. Apparently, whites interested in racial information seek it to learn about one’s superiority and to find out how utterly horrible others are! The dimwit needs the crutch of this caricature to have his argument stand. The real hope is for patriots in the U.S. military to stage a coup, take out a bunch of key Khazars, mass arrest Jews in NYC and LA, and use the arrested Jews as leverage: IsraHell’s nuclear weapons in exchange for safe passage of Jews to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in remote Siberia and their containment there. 55
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 02:35 | # Uh’s a jew? I’ve had a jew living with me all this time? Right under my nose? 56
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:00 | #
The premise is false. The country cannot become black or yellow and remain the same.
Mr. Mendacious… LOL
57
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:48 | # A purpose of sites like MR is, or ought to be, the sharing of practical strategies to advance white EGI. Methods of dispute resolution in a White Republic, the ‘unencumbered self’ and its relation to race-liberalism or postmodernity, the existence of God, etc, are all interesting matters. But discussing them hardly directly aids our cause. <em></em><u></u><blockquote></blockquote>
Instead of the pseudo-intellectual esoteric bullshit that appeals to about three people in the whole universe that tends to flood this site - how about working out PRACTICAL METHODS AND TIPS to get the masses to support nationalism. No doubt this thread will be hijacked by intellectual onanists in love with their own frantic intellectual public masturbation. Feel free to wank away the usual pseuds. 58
Posted by Bill on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:18 | # Democracy. If voting made any difference it would have been denied the masses ages ago. Democracy, if it ever existed is dead. The BBC (media) is being called upon to prop up the illusion of democracy like never before, that your input is valuable and makes a difference. What a sick joke. The airwaves, tabloid newspapers, broadsheets, our television screens, magazines, blogs, party political web sites are awash under a tsunami of Blue team Red team hysteria. Voting Tory will only let in labour, vote Ukip that’s the only way. If it wasn’t so sickening you’d die of laughing. Which brings me to the Leverson enquiry. This is a judicial inquiry into the shenanigans of the British establishment and Rupert Murdoch’s News International. http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ There has been other such judicial inquiries in Britain in recent times involving the bankers and politicians. These televised inquiries take the form of Nazi/Soviet style show trials. Guilt and contrition is the only escape route to forgiveness for the accused. The spectacle of seeing Rupert Murdock swatting away under arm pat-a-cake soft ball questions is a joke. The power elites, judiciary, politicians, media, bankers are all in it together, (they actually tell us this.) I’m waiting for the question did Mr Murdoch ask prime minister Cameron if he, (Cameron) was a safe pair of hands on immigration. For decades Murdoch has been seen (by those who know these things) as a shadow cabinet member of every government since the ‘70’s with regular meetings with prime ministers Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown and the present incumbent prime minister Cameron. The Conservative blogosphere is incandescent at these revelations, all those millons of votes negated over decades by this one man Murdoch. Some democracy! To add insult to injury the blogosphere have sussed there is no red team or blue team, it’s one congealed mush moving in one direction, choice is an illusion, a scam just like printing money from nothing is a scam. And the BBC, who are never out of office, prop up this crock of shit 24/7. I’ve said before, the internal contradictions of this master scam comprising of bankers, politicians, media, NGO’s, think tanks et al, will unravel as they scratch each others eyes out for position of head honcho. Anyone who cannot see what’s happening to our living arrangements must be living on another planet. Don’t vote for any of them. Deny them the legitamacy they crave. I could go on…. I haven’t even mentioned the EU. 59
Posted by Helvena on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:52 | # Quite right Bill. I won’t be voting either. I won’t support a sham. Honesty about the jewish role in our society is a must. MacDonald said it best “[the jew] is necessary but not sufficient” to explain the state we’re in. However, take away the *necessary* and the only thing remaining is *not sufficient*, which allows us to at least attempt to solve the problems. by T. S. Eliot Burbank with a Baedeker: Bleistein with a Cigar Tra-la-la-la-la-la-laire—nil nisi divinum stabile
Defunctive music under sea The horses, under the axletree But this or such was Bleistein’s way: A lustreless protrusive eye Declines. On the Rialto once. Princess Volupine extends Klein. Who clipped the lion’s wings
60
Posted by British Activism on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:24 | # @ Silver
Thats what I did, somewhere along the line. I turned the table and said that the question was not ‘what importance’ is has or does’t have, the question is why people think it is good to destroy it, and pursue policies and even be determined to create this situation in the first place when it is unnecessary, and why they believe the are on the just and moral side for doing so. I also tend to agree with some of the criticisms made of ourselves and also some of Lee’s usual points. I have done for quite some time, although perhaps not quite so radical. The thing is, perhaps, figuring out how best to sell without selling out…..and this is where people can differ. However, what I do know is that certain sites (I won’t mention any names!) and certain models of discourse are often wholly detremental for breaking out of our somewhat self made cocoon. Then they scratch their heads as to why we are not winning over the trust and righteous nature of wider society. In fact, I would go as far to say that British Nationalist discourse on some sites and comment sections (since they introduced comments on them) have got even worse - and in some cases beyond a parody, lol. There are some good new lines out there, in my opinion. Some fresh work pushing through. I think that it is possible to move ahead with a more honed approach, but changing the output and culture of nationalism itself isn’t going to be easy. There is nothing wrong with being open to looking at where we are going wrong, if it makes us get things more right. (Including my own views, positions or strategies). I tend to agree with Lee that there is a lot of quite high-foluting material and a lot of time ‘wasted’ (if you like) chatting this stuff back and forth to ourselves instead of getting it packaged for the masses - but at the same time, at the opposite end, some of the other discourse can really scrape the bottom of the barrel and can be embarassing as a representation of what we are about.
61
Posted by uh on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:55 | #
What is this Mickey Mouse bullshit? 62
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:17 | # A big thanks to Desmond at #56 for that research there. Im sure there are some other, similar, nuggets buried within the dusty vaults of MR. 63
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:18 | #
Quite so. I’d be most interested to hear how the Rothschilds came to influence post-war British immigration policy. Nobody could be stupid enough to make such an outlandish claim without having any evidence to support it, could they? 64
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:19 | # British Activism - meant to get back to you re: Hitchens thread but wasnt time then, still have to read it. The moment may have passed on that one. 65
Posted by uh on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:21 | #
We all ought to just go our separate ways. Nothing you said above differs from all that you have ever said, nor will the responses differ, nor does mine. Get a life. 66
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:38 | # Mr. Barnes as ever the charmer I see. What are your practical tips and suggestions? You’re a longstanding activist so you must have some ideas beyond neo-Nazi raves for the kids? For my part I have suggested the cardinal importance of considering the needs of one’s audience as the first rule of all political rhetoric (try to understand why they presently think as they do beyond the duped/moron cliché) - the needs of the speaker to ‘let off steam’ etc., are totally irrelevant. Secondly, the need to establish some tiny slice of common ground (it can be banal or trivial) as a ‘bridging mechanism’ to expand the scope of topics under discussion. Thirdly, the need to prevent the audience from ignoring what you have to say because of how you say it - basically do everything to avoid unnecessarily provoking negative associations - in terms of tone, language used, dress, mannerism etc., there is obviously far more to communication than merely the informational content of one’s message. All common sense I would have thought. Again somewhat obviously it’s horses for courses - a rough and ready pub is not the same as a middle-class dinner party. And the New Criterion or City Journal comment pages are not the same as those of The Sun. Someone else said:
I agree - what have I been saying about self-styled dangerous/marginal antinomians for a very long time?
67
Posted by British Activism on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:48 | # @Lurker, it doesn’t matter about the hitchens blog, it was only a very lightweight joust and just an example. If I am ever under heavy fire, I may pop here and gather some ammunition. I think I handled it pretty well so far on that comment section, but there are a few more comments that - as yet- have not been published. Whether the mail will ever push them through their filter, I don’t know. I haven’t really ‘argued’ with a commentor on a mainstream site for a long time, so I wondered whether I could have done better, or if I was falling into some traps. I heard that this site was doing well on the Telegraph so I gathered some might be more experienced in jousting than myself. Also, I wondered on people’s opinions on how worthwhile it is spending hours on this kind of activity anyway, I suppose, and whether there was a better course of action or a different audience base we should be engaging with. Do these ‘battles’ really make a difference or change the paradigm of the national discourse enough to make a difference? I suppose they all help, but the ‘conversion’ rate must be very low, all the same.
68
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 17:06 | # Mr. Barnes as ever the charmer I see.
What are your practical tips and suggestions? You’re a longstanding activist so you must have some ideas beyond neo-Nazi raves for the kids?
For my part I have suggested the cardinal importance of considering the needs of one’s audience as the first rule of all political rhetoric (try to understand why they presently think as they do beyond the duped/moron cliché) - the needs of the speaker to ‘let off steam’ etc., are totally irrelevant. Secondly, the need to establish some tiny slice of common ground (it can be banal or trivial) as a ‘bridging mechanism’ to expand the scope of topics under discussion. Thirdly, the need to prevent the audience from ignoring what you have to say because of how you say it - basically do everything to avoid unnecessarily provoking negative associations - in terms of tone, language used, dress, mannerism etc., there is obviously far more to communication than merely the informational content of one’s message. All common sense I would have thought. 1) Your fist point is partly correct - one must seek to empathise with ones audience. But an audience is itself an aggregate of individuals - and what matters most to them, and which communicates to them most powerfully, are integrity and passion. If you dont believe what you are saying, dont say it. 2) An audience doesnt want to be lectured - they primarily want to be entertained. This is why there is a fundamental difference between an ORATOR and a COMMUNICATOR. An orator gives lecture and disseminates ideas, a communicator creates nationalists out of an audience of non-nationalists. We need communicators, not orators. Orators appeal to the converted, Communicators create the converted.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: until this movement can shed its crazies/liars/moles/general dysfunctionals, we’re not getting anywhere, or at least not as far as we could. There are very, very few places on the internet where quality discussions of our people’s future can really take place. To have them disrupted and cluttered with increasingly outlandish liars, slanderers, and nutcases is not doing anyone any good…including the nuts. I agree - what have I been saying about self-styled dangerous/marginal antinomians for a very long time?
In just one word you have defined exactly where the movement has gone wrong, and vanished up its own asshole.
69
Posted by Trinxeria on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 18:24 | # And don’t forget: “welfare state ist unser Unglück” There’s where most of our problems come from. 70
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:42 | #
I like to think its a cumulative effect, if enough people are exposed to consistent lines of thought it may have some effect. Advertising rarely works these days by simply saying ‘Buy this car!’. We are exposed to multiple adverts for a given model, numerous images, reviews and so on. No one sees one poster and then pops down the road and buys a VW. The brand is built up constantly, little and often. The other thing about these battles is that one gets better at ones arguments, I think I have. The other side seem dead in the water. Part of their problem is they cant even discuss these issues, even to do so for them is to commit thought crime - except when arguing with us. Im used to having those arguments over and over and get better, they dont seem to be progressing beyond the same lumbering platitudes. Its like playing football against a team that never practices and only plays with a ball when its the European Cup final. Does it have an effect? Well, being subjective here, it worked on me, a one time Guardian reading sort of liberal. 71
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 21:03 | # Well, being subjective here, it worked on me, a one time Guardian reading sort of liberal. OMG! 72
Posted by TabuLa Raza on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 21:53 | # What are your practical tips and suggestions? Goodbye Charlie in the 10th at Hollywood Park. If Graham were actually white, he could change his name to Graham Cracker. No site has ever pissed me off as much as this one I had to leave because of homicidal rage. 74
Posted by jamesUK on Sun, 29 Apr 2012 00:49 | # Where’s the Jonathan Bowden tribute? I thought he was a frequent commentator and writer on Majority Rights? 75
Posted by Horatio on Sun, 29 Apr 2012 04:17 | #
What’s there to say? He was a great public speaker. But let’s face it - his writing and painting were shit. 76
Posted by Mr Voight on Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:06 | # @ uh & danielj, is the podcast thing you spoke of still happening? 77
Posted by uh on Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:36 | # Mr Voight - It might yet. Daniel’s changing jobs, but I’m settled for a while. 78
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sun, 29 Apr 2012 23:34 | # Yeah. It’ll be White Nationalist dada. Not sure if the MR crowd will dig it. 79
Posted by Lew on Mon, 30 Apr 2012 04:20 | # @4 J Richards: <quote>the Khazar Haller and others of his ilk, such as Matt Parrott and Lew, do their part in deflecting attention toward the wrong targets and sending people into blind alleys.</quote> I’d venture a guess that Leon Haller, Matt Parrott and I probably agree on some things and disagree on others. The only point of agreement between us that is certain is that none of us find your arguments convincing 80
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 30 Apr 2012 05:49 | # @hi-freaking-larious I’ve given you links explaining what have to be deliberate lies by AE911. You need some physics background to understand them, and then you’d realize what game they’re playing. Lies by NIST are easy to understand as it’s a government group that has to maintain the official lie. But why AE911 [also STJ911]? Because this way the opposing parties go into a back-and-forth exchange of technical, at times highly technical, refutations of the opposing view. The public’s attention is wasted between the two groups playing a game of false dichotomy; attention is taken away from far simpler issues that can be pieced together to point to the real 9/11 culprits: Jews. AE911 and STJ911 are also closed groups, reluctant to take independents into the fold. They’re controlled opposition. It’s unfortunate if unfamiliarity with basic physics prevents you from realizing this. As you can observe how it is at websites in the nationalist genre—either run by Jews/their agents outright or crawling with them, it’s no different with the 9/11 truth groups. The 9/11 truth movement was created by Jews to lead the opposition, control dissent and control damage. It’s surprising you think that Haller and Parrott are goyim. Even a blackmailed goy wouldn’t behave like Haller. Haller is undoubtedly full-blooded Jew. You know what Parrott writes and how he writes it. If this isn’t a giant red flag waving a few feet from you, have you seen Parrott’s beak? Try to if you haven’t. I’ll give you a hint: it’s lovely to look at. And take a guess whether the hat he typically wears is for a mundane reason such as hiding a balding scalp or something more interesting, such as a peculiar cranial shape. On Lew, what should one make of someone who criticizes Jews left and right but chickens out on the big items, starting to make excuses for them and those working for them? Use some critical thinking. 81
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:39 | # I finally can spare a bit of time to comment. I’m nearing the end of my school semester, and so the work is piling up mercilessly. As mentioned, I had written this comment over a week ago, originally for a Yahoo board whose OP had really pissed me off, and my writing rather got away from me. Once I saw my 12 points, however, I thought it might be useful to post at MR. For perhaps the first time, I’ve actually read the entire thread. I thank everyone who made non-malicious comments, in particular Graham Lister, Silver, daniel, British Activism, Bill, Lurker and Lee Barnes. Lister #32 is especially insightful, and ought to have drawn more notice than it did. Silver #53, after the tantrum in the first paragraph, appears to be working his way towards my long held view re: the vital importance of developing the ethics of white preservation. Heigh Ho, Silver! Western Man is Ethical Man. That simple fact is at once the supreme glory of our race, and its most dangerous character trait, insofar as this aspect of our collective racial biology renders us highly vulnerable to moral and material manipulation by less ethical groups or races. It must be put near the heart of WN political strategizing. Until a majority of our people deem our politics at least morally acceptable (if not preferably mandatory), we’re not going to gain significant electoral and therefore legislative traction. Thus, while it is true that humans (perhaps especially females) prefer strong and confident leaders, they, at least in the modern West, do so only to the extent those leaders keep within ‘conventional’ (ie, not traditional, but modal) moral boundaries. For whatever reasons (and they are ideational as well as sociological), in the modern West even very moderate WN has come to be seen as morally suspect, if not illegitimate. Unless we overturn this consensus, WN will continue to languish. In order to conduct an ethical analysis of public policies, one must have some metaphysical standpoint or touchstone. I disbelieve in the coherence of allegedly metaphysically neutral ethics. For me, that touchstone is Christianity (specifically its Catholic variant). One important aspect of my 12 political/legislative demands is that, however harsh they may sound to liberal ears, none of them violates traditional Christian morality. Nowhere that I have discovered, either in the Bible or the evolution of Church doctrine, are Christians enjoined to ‘diversify’ their communities, forego non-aggressive militaries, ban capital punishment, tolerate criminal gangs, restrict weapons ownership, or allow undifferentiated immigration (the single exception is the narrow case of genuine refugees in great bodily danger requiring temporary refuge). And yet, and this is key to my thinking wrt the policies we should advocate, each of these policies in some way, major or minor, would serve to advance white EGI. Over the summer break, I aspire to write five substantive posts for MR. These will be: a review of Taylor, White Identity; my required review of Krebs, Fighting for the Essence; an opening salvo in a practical discussion of the constituents of a nationalist ‘minimum’ (ie, what is the white EGI agenda all WNs should agree on?); a rejoinder to Graham Lister’s contention that support for both ultra-strong property rights and capitalism, on the on hand, and WN, on the other, is philosophically incoherent; and finally, my thoughts on the JQ (which will alienate all sides of the ideological spectrum). I mention these because at least two of these issues are implicated in the comments above. I have to leave soon for class, but I’d like to respond tonight to some specific comments. I’ll do one now. Richards: I am not a Jew. Not by religion, blood, or affiliation. 82
Posted by hymie in Afula on Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:05 | # Esteemed Mr Haller, what does the abbreviation EGI stand for? 83
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:56 | # Ethnic Genetic Interests (EGI)—Thesis of the book written by Dr. Salter - http://www.amazon.com/On-Genetic-Interests-Ethnicity-Migration/dp/1412805961 On Genetic Interests book review: http://amren.com/ar/2003/02/index.html An abridged version of the piece written By Michael Rienzi can be found at the upper left hand corner of MR’s home page. Click on EGI.pdf. Hope that helps. 84
Posted by jamesUK on Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:12 | # @Horatio
Norman Lowell’s collection.
85
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:22 | # Individuals and groups may seek truth, beauty, and justice, but all these more noble goals will be lost unless one makes provision for one’s security in the power struggle among groups. - Robert Gilpin 86
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:43 | # Just checking in. Can someone delete these awful pictures? 87
Posted by uh on Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:49 | #
88
Posted by jamesUK on Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:11 | # @Leon Haller & uh It is Abstract Expressionist WN art.
The pictures are a lasting tribute to Bowden’s legacy which the loyal MR community have decided to abandon. 89
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 01 May 2012 00:43 | # Seriously, get that shit off this thread. Why don’t you re-post it on David Hamilton’s immediately preceding thread “The Definition of Art”, as an example of what’s not art (technically, it’s ‘schlock’)? It doesn’t belong here. It’s interrupting the flow of the topic, about which I shall have more to say shortly. Lurker, old chap, delete these photos will you please? 90
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 01 May 2012 02:29 | # Haller’s disturbed by some of Jonathan Bowden’s art, “awful pictures,” posted above and wants to “Seriously, get that shit off this thread.” His stated reason is that “It doesn’t belong here. It’s interrupting the flow of the topic.” Elsewhere, Haller has an extensive history of trolling when serious crimes by Jews were being discussed, i.e., a lengthy essay on miscegenation in a discussion of who did 9/11. The real reason for his displeasure is the sketch of Adolf Hitler, which produces beads of sweat on his forehead and a racing heart. Too many visuals of Herr Hitler and its a trip to the loo for Haller. And Haller thinks that he can convince people he isn’t a full-blooded Jew! This filthy Khazar talks about advancing white EGI while excusing for Jews and promoting Jewish interests, the biggest, by far, factor undermining white EGI! 91
Posted by jamesUK on Tue, 01 May 2012 07:40 | # @Leon Haller
It’s white nationalist art you just don’t understand the underline themes and hidden complexity behind them.
92
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 01 May 2012 08:49 | # Sorry, Richards, they’re taking up space, and ruining the thread. Move em to the “art” thread. I’m German-American Catholic. Not a drop of Jew. On the other hand, you are so over the top I can’t help wondering about YOU. Anyway, I thought you were building your own, “Jew-proof” site. Please hasten its construction, and stay there. At MR, we’re trying to do something constructive. 93
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 01 May 2012 09:22 | # Matt Parrott @2 I don’t have a firm opinion on whether my comment is too initially harsh, though I don’t think so, esp if we delete the race war talk; though even there, note I do NOT advocate race war, but merely predict it, and advise whites to prepare for it - and to do so by means which are perfectly legal as well as moral. That is my real point. We need to get white people to recognize the objective fact that we are being persecuted, that the oppression will get worse, and that we have an ethical right to resist aggression against us, whether personal/physical or political. The biggest problem with WN by far has been its utterly needless associations with unsavory, neo-Nazi or hardcore racial supremacist (KKK) elements. These associations have been disastrous for white EGI. Everything gets worse on racial issues because large numbers of whites are either mentally deranged on race (ie, white hard-core (ie, completely closed-minded) liberals, who, however, are likely a minority of all whites, even at this late stage in the ongoing elite-driven, anti-white kulturkampf), or else have come to accept the complete immorality of whites thinking and acting in racially collectivist ways, even if they are not race-blind idiots. There is nothing that can be done wrt the bulk of the first group, but the latter is reachable (and we must persuade them, as they constitute the vast majority of whites), provided we, per Dr. Lister’s comments, do not excessively raise the psychological bar to their considering our arguments. My 12 points are hardheaded, but they are not really racist (as modal whites understand the term). I am not calling for unlawful aggression or even meanspiritedness against nonwhites. Aggression is the ethical boundary between acceptable policies of white preservation, and morally problematic (especially in the eyes of most people) white supremacist ones (I say this even though some forms of white supremacy can be ethically justified within a Christian cosmology - but that would truly be a hard sell for the modal white today). As for ‘salesmanship’, well, it depends on context, obviously. But I want whites to be hit with a recognition of the problem, as well as a set of ‘first solutions’ which they can support in good conscience. My core belief re WN strategy is that there are a lot of potential whites, mostly conservatives, who are getting increasingly worried as well as angered about the racial situation (eg, its sheer injustice towards whites), but won’t ‘go there’ wrt WN because they think that white racial politicking is immoral. In my experience, this is especially true of the legions of white Christians, only a minority of whom are ‘progressives’ and racial leftists. Most are psychologically ambivalent: they know the ‘browning’ of America bodes ill for them and their children, but they are resigned to doing nothing because they have been brainwashed into thinking there is something morally wrong with white collectivism. We either change that moral consensus, or our racial nation dies. I think a good beginning is making whites aware of just how many policies we can support which help White America without violating the rights of nonwhites (to take but one example: can anyone say it would be immoral of us to grant independence to Puerto Rico? and yet, that alone would slightly further white EGI). 94
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 01 May 2012 10:40 | # Graham Lister @14 I have to laugh, and so should you. The ‘politics of limits’ holds a very honorable place within Western political philosophy: Aristotle—-> Aquinas—-> Hume, Johnson, Burke—-> Oakshott, to name only some. I believe most of our own Founding Fathers would have been quite comfortable with this suggestion. Unfortunately, America today, at least in its political rhetoric, from both sides, is as far from such political modesty as it is possible to imagine its mainstream being. Most of us are not swayed by utopian egalitarianism, let alone will to power heroic collectivism. But get past those extremes, and few Americans want to be told that some problems admit of no ultimately satisfactory solution, or that accommodation can be a virtue. On the other hand, when it comes to “race and reasonableness”, Left-based arguments are, I believe, almost useless. Some years back I recounted here at MR an experience I had had which I thought illustrated our modern insanity. Sometime in the late 90s, I was out on a first date with a cute white girl I didn’t know very well. Naturally, I avoided politics, and especially racial topics (I don’t trust myself, frankly; no matter how ‘liberal’ I genuinely think my comments, they still come off as far too extreme). The date was going very well. We’d been out drinking and laughing for hours. Clearly, this girl liked me. I cannot now recall how the topic of overpopulation and resource depletion came up, but it did, and at some point I suggested that we should limit immigration, as the US was in danger of exceeding its ecological carrying capacity, and given the importance of US agriculture to the entire world, our generous immigration policy could not be continued indefinitely without possibly global repercussions. NO MENTION OF RACE OR IMMIGRANT PROBLEMS WAS MADE. I made the comment only in the racially/culturally neutral context of overpopulation. The effect was startling, and (ideologically) sobering. I don’t remember all that was said, only her saying disapprovingly that my view was “very conservative” (which it is, in the truest sense), and “how could we keep out hardworking people who wanted to live here?”. My pointing out that every nation has a moral right to decide its level of immigration didn’t help the situation, which had been literally lost as soon as I had made the original statement. The date went downhill very rapidly from there, and I never saw the girl again. My point is tripartite: 1) racial loyalty is probably an instinct (race, unlike monetary policy or nuclear strategy, is visceral: either you get it or you don’t - no one has to ‘teach’ blacks to take their own side in any collective racial episode involving another race); 2) such loyalty is unevenly distributed between people (and thus in theory could be plotted on a bell curve), as well as between different races; and 3) among the living races, whites seem to have the most attenuated sense of it. Is it worthwhile for white preservationists to formulate arguments that might appeal to the likes of my date - those on the left side of the racial loyalty bell curve (assuming the x-axis measures intensity of racial identification, and the y-axis measures population)? Given how far the entire bell curve is already shifted to the left for whites as compared to other groups, I suggest not. When persons like myself and Trainspotter call attention to the deep racial ‘soul-sickness’ of whites, we are referring to some faulty neuro-wiring in a huge number of whites (yes, I’m speaking metaphorically), some inability to make the usual friend-enemy distinction which would cause a person’s ‘knee-jerk’ reactions to be racially self-favorable. When I first heard about the Trayvon Martin homicide, my gut reaction (and that of my parents, sisters, and most of my friends) was that some typically criminal Negroid had been shot by a white man in self-defense (later I saw Zimmerman’s picture, and realized he was Hispanic). I am racially healthy, and therefore am not afraid to ‘think’ the truth, which in situations like this almost always disfavors the black. Indeed, even if we are in error in any particular case, the normal reaction of any white living in post-60s America and hearing about the shooting of a black by a white should be to assume the black was guilty - because in fact, that is usually the truth. I was in law school at the time of the infamous Rodney King beating. I simply could not believe the genuinely outraged and racially simpering reaction of hordes of my classmates (still mostly white, despite vicious affirmative action, at least as bad as what happens today). And I’m not even referring to the Jews, of whom there were a lot. There were a few rightists, and among ourselves we kept wondering what was wrong with these assholes, most of whom would have shat themselves if coming face to face with a giant, violent black criminal savage like Rodney King. The brilliant JRichards alleges that this is all the work of the nefarious Jews, that without their control of the money supply (don’t ask - the causal mechanism escapes me as well), most whites would be just like us at MR, strong in their love of race and heritage. Sadly, I doubt it (how many abolitionists were Jews, Richards? was Wilberforce a yid? Brown? Garrison?). The innate psychology of whites is simply such as to make us collectively more susceptible to universalist slogans and arguments. This is a fact we just have to work around. My bottom line is that I just don’t think there are very many persons on the ideological Left who are capable of racial realism and therefore amenable to reasoned argument. Most are like that girl I was with, completely closed-minded. Of course, matters may be different in other countries, but I cannot recall ever meeting anyone who was sympathetic to most of the general leftist agenda (pro-socialism, feminism, gay rights, anti-death penalty, pro-gun control, anti-military), while nevertheless being racially sound. To be a racialist is almost by definition to be an inegalitarian, to believe in concepts of superiority and inferiority (which is why I have a very hard time believing that someone like Roger Scruton, who openly defends notions of high/low culture, the possibility of truth, and the reality of objective artistic beauty, is not, in his heart, at least a race-realist, if not a non-aggressive racist; how can any civilized and learned Englishman not think that nonwhites are ruining Britain?). All the same, it certainly wouldn’t hurt to demonstrate that even ‘progressive’ goals, like generous environmental preservation, are harmed by the deadening hand of racial ‘correctness’, in this case facilitating the gross overcrowding of the UK by rendering discussion of immigration essentially off limits. But I think the target-rich areas for WN ‘conversions’ are on the Right (including, in the US, the Christian Right, which polls have repeatedly shown evinces a high degree of hostility to immigration, certainly more than the neoliberal/corporate Right asses). 95
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 01 May 2012 11:01 | # Lee John Barnes: Your distinction between Orators and communicators has merit, though a potentially mass-movement such as ours requires both. I disagree with your ill-concealed (OK, overt) contempt for intellectual nationalism. It is only natural that intelligent men will want to explore the more abstract reaches of their philosophical systems. I want a nationalist philosophy which is capable of defending itself against the analytical and rhetorical attacks of its antagonists. All ideologies seek to be as intellectually coherent as possible, and engage in much disputation towards that end. The Marxist tradition depleted entire forests in its heyday. Moreover, not all people, and certainly not all whites, are emotion-driven morons. Many seek a deeper analysis of things, and will not be persuaded if such is unforthcoming. These superior types are precisely what we want. A good man is worth more than several losers. And anyway, I believe it was the original aspiration of MR to be a site of WN metapolitical analysis, not one coordinating activism, or introducing persons to nationalist basics. This is not the right place to steer a nationalist ‘newbie’, who requires simple, visceral discussions of our preferred policies. 96
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 02 May 2012 10:22 | # Hey,off topic, but does anyone here read the New English Review? I just discovered, and it looks interesting, although it’s rather too neocon/Jewish. definitely anti-Muslim, which is always a good beginning. 97
Posted by hymie in Afula on Wed, 02 May 2012 13:37 | # >> most whites would be just like us at MR, strong in their love of race and heritage. From my chair in Afula, it looks like your first clause is not in harmony with your second. from my chair, it looks like the ==actual== (but cleverly silent-about-it) EGI-conscious WN’s in North America, are the Amish and the Old-Order Mennonites.
What “jewish tool” (eg, mass-narcotic television) are these groups susceptible to? None, I think. Am I wrong? I think (I’m ready to be corrected) you cannot be an EGI-conscious WN simultaneous to being an obedient Roman Catholic. “catholicism” is all about accepting Nigerian Cardinals as having the same vote in selecting a Pope, as an Icelandic one. Plus there’s (at least in theory) an imperative to proseletyze and spread the faith. Well, you’ve run out of white Cardinals to create. Any new ones are gonna be brown or black.
“If you will it, it is no dream” - Herzl 98
Posted by Amused Angel on Wed, 02 May 2012 14:57 | # Usually boring, this site can sometimes be hilarious. I’ve been watching intellectual windbags endlessly wringing their hands over ways to convert the masses for over a decade now. Their thoughts haven’t changed much. They can’t seem to get past going into Greek philosophy as a means of understanding how to cross the street. Excellent points above by Silver and, especially, JLB, although I’m not sure even they realize that “the problem” has been resolving itself. Fact is, over the last few years tens of millions of Whites have stumbled - yes, stumbled - into the awakeasphere, mostly due to random links to sites like http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/ (a very basic entry level one, but one of, what, thousands, on all various depth levels?). So many blogs, so little time, sigh. It’s the amount of information people are now being exposed to that’s making the difference, not tweaking points! That the windbags are stuck in 1999 and haven’t realized this is, well, pretty good evidence that masturbation can be a full time job but still only means playing with one’s mind in the dark. Get a grip, fellas. Surf the blogs. Read media comments. Notice how hostile media have become to comments. Do the math. Point is, as long as the regime and its media are in hostile hands most people will not be won over by arguments, facts, or carefully contrived tweaks. Mass and repetition have done it, under the oblivious intellectuals’ noses. Are the majority of Whites awake now? Probably not, but it’s a hell of a lot closer than WN eggheads realize. What they ought to consider considering is where to lead tens of millions of awakened Whites now that they’re listening. No doubt that that too will formulate apart from “leadership”.
99
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 03 May 2012 03:41 | #
This pest has been referred to European history: example after example of whites fighting for their people and their way of life. He’s been referred to American northern Europeans clamping down on immigration in the 1920s to maintain the northern European character of the nation. He’s been shown data from representative samples of whites, in recent years: the NORC General Social Surveys and the American Mosaic Project Survey. But no matter how many time this pest is shown evidence of healthy racial consciousness and healthy ethnocentrism among whites, he keeps repeating the yarn ad nauseum. What kind of pest behaves in this manner? A desperate, Khazar pest. The pest has been shown evidence that the predicament stems from losing control of the governance of one’s societies to the Money Changers. The pest community itself describes the golden rule as “He who has the gold, makes the rules.” But the Khazar pest, superficially lamenting the rules while ignoring who has the gold, says:
The pest, when pointed out the money link, understood very well, as evidenced by his discombobulating and trolling; follow the references and context here: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_economics_of_mass_immigration#c121551 [notice the yarn repeated there, too] The pest says: “... most whites would be just like us at MR, strong in their love of race and heritage.” MR is crawling with Khazar pests like Haller, and he uses “us” to include the non-Jewish small minority blogging or commenting here. The pestilence even uses “would be” when the evidence suggests that most whites already have healthy racial consciousness. The festering pestilence then digresses into abolitionism, identifying it as a problem! The typical Khazar mind doesn’t see anything wrong with slavery. At the time I would have been an abolitionist myself. Slavery is a moral evil. But there’s a big gap between abolishing slavery and integrating blacks into one’s society, especially forcibly integrating blacks among whites, for which Khazars are primarily responsible. Jews were behind the transatlantic slave trade of blacks. After the end of black slavery in America, ideally, Jews should’ve been made to pay for trading in black slaves, these payments given to blacks as compensation, the slave trading Jews hanged, other Jews expelled, and the blacks sent back to Africa. Many patriots wanted blacks sent back. The problem was that the civil war was a victory for Jews and they needed manual labor and had other use for blacks in mind. So the blacks were here to stay. 100
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 03 May 2012 11:55 | # If the Left can be sensible on comments, why not MR?
If we want MR to be an intellectually premier site, we must work towards that goal. Without forceful direction, the crazies will show, and the quality won’t.
101
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 03 May 2012 12:02 | # Not saying the following is perfect, but what an improvement it would be at MR (except for the “Intolerance” crap, obviously)!
to engage. 102
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 04 May 2012 06:37 | # The Khazar, infected pustule Haller urges a comments policy! The policy excerpt he cites proscribes trolling and de-railing discussions. Implement this policy at MR and this pest would be among the first to be banned! The infected pus cites the policy recommendations right below me citing an example of him trolling. Needless to add, the crusted boil-dwelling parasite holds “it isn’t trolling if I do it.” And notice the context of his wish for a comments policy: evidence of him behaving like a Jew, which he can’t explain as being consistent with his claim that he isn’t Jewish. A few months back I was trying to get a comments policy implemented myself. The Khazars who disrupted an expose of the major crimes and lies by their community attacked conclusions, not the evidence behind them. Force them to do content analysis, prohibit informal logical fallacies (straw man, red herring, argumentum verbosium, onus probandi, etc.), the two things I wanted to do, and the Khazar input will be reduced to a trickle. People will agree that lack of content analysis and informal logical fallacies don’t belong in informed, high caliber, reasonable and intellectual debates, the kind the hookworm parasite Haller superficially desires; we all know what this parasite really wants. 103
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Wed, 09 May 2012 13:48 | #
This is the invariable first act of all revolutionaries. Outlaw any similar revolutionary behavior. The tiresome little pissant “Graham Lister” whines unctuously about this too. He grants himself the liberty to denigrate others with comments like “pigs flying past windows”. But then he snivels like the pansy ass cry baby he is when his own measure is applied to himself. And stop flying past my window, Gayham Listerbag! You were the first one to introduce that, so just suck it up. And perhaps be more careful with that useless virtual mouth of yours in the future. “Quality”? Quality was the late John Bryant, whether you agreed with him or not. And I note that Perfidious Albion has unpersonned John Bryant in the links. Now John actually believed and practiced what GW claims to adhere to: copious amounts of free speech. The difference is John was real. Bald, two-faced hypocrisy is the leading characteristic of the new regime at M-R. This has even superseded the verbose faux intellectualism. 104
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 09 May 2012 15:00 | # “verbose faux intellectualism” Well Ex-Pro no-one could ever accuse you of anything intellectual. How is the charm school going? Do you generally resent people with better skills or knowledge in a given area of endeavour? Never mind that faux-egalitarian, know-nothing, pseudo-democratic spirit of America is something you simply can’t help. We all understand where you’re coming from. BTW have you produced something on French culture or politics given you’re an expert on all things French? Just on a factual point do you actually own a passport and has it ever been used? Quebec is not part of France (in case you didn’t know) so visiting it doesn’t count. 105
Posted by daniel on Wed, 09 May 2012 16:57 | # Graham said, JamesUK and Daniel your points are inter-related - for anyone in the UK, particularly the educated middle-class, to be suspected of being racist is the quickest way to an almost catastrophic loss of personal status with very detrimental real-world consequences. I devised my own mantra to attack and undermine the concept of anti-racism directly. I have repeated this many times. In the the beginning, in days prior to internet support when I was very much alone in my racial advocacy, I would repeat it to myself, even - like a literal mantra. I have said it many times to others. I have never experienced anything approaching an effective rebut. It has worked very well for me and I think that if promulgated it can go far in countering the effect of the accusation of racism. Here is my mantra: First, one version for the educated, middle class (for the upper classes, even) and otherwise intellectually snooty - Anti-racism is Cartesian. It is not innocent. It is prejudice. It is hurting and it is killing people.
106
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 09 May 2012 17:16 | # XWPA - Ive put this Birdman guy back into the links. I’d not heard of him before. Thanks for the heads up. 107
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 09 May 2012 20:53 | # I wonder what is thought of my comments #93-94? If whites are genetically inclined to find universalist arguments more persuasive, then that fact needs to be considered by WNs in formulating their arguments. What matters is victory, not merely adopting heroic poses. XPWA, What do you have against those trying to provide greater intellectual coherence and ‘sheen’ to nationalist ideology; indeed, to those trying to think analytically about our issues? Your position makes no sense. You prefer a dumber ideology? Is appealing to intellectuals a waste of time? But isn’t quality generally more important than quantity? If we do not bring at least some portion of the more intelligent (who are mostly the more successful and therefore influential) around to our position, we are lost. Skins can help power a revolt, but they won’t lead it; well, anywhere except into prison or ditches. 108
Posted by Matthew Dunnyveg on Wed, 09 May 2012 21:43 | # I rarely post to websites that would agree with me, such as this one. Instead, I spend my time trying to spread the word on more mainstream sites; I come to sites such as this one to learn. I’ve been using the “typical article” technique described in this article for a while now. It works when something big happens that will be in many major media outlets, such as the Trayvon Martin affair. Although I found Kievsky’s “IPM” analogy to be interesting, I tend to interpret what is going on more philosophically as the work of the post-Marxist left, otherwise known as Political Correctness. Any of us who have bothered to look are aware that the PC left doesn’t use reasoning or empirical facts to shoot down our arguments; they name-call and try to censor. But this is all the left can do, as the facts are on OUR side. The PC left is little more than a quasi-religion; it is all based upon highly pernicious articles of faith. As such, I’ve found the best techniques to use are ridicule and sarcasm. Both are techniques the left is good at dishing out, but not so good at receiving. Nobody wants their sacred values ridiculed, even when the profane is rendered sacred. The sarcasm technique I’m working on now is to spell out precisely the PC articles of faith at issue. Since PC’s articles of faith are absurd when spelled out, it is devastatingly effective. Therefore, I will second Haller’s remarks: Post early, post late, post often, and learn learn learn. 109
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 10 May 2012 00:56 | #
Matthew - thats what I try to do. Post a comment:
Next entry: Hearing Jonathan Bowden
|
|
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 hi-freaking-larious on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:26 | #
Yeah but Bob Whitaker already did it, and his mantra and related talking points are far superior than your “herewith is my grab bag of contard planks.”
No thanks, we’re full.
You just can’t help yourself, it’s probably genetic; that need of yours to purge anyone who doesn’t recognize your self-ackowledged genius. And you know, anyone daring to criticize God’s Holy Jews. How very ... “Catholic” of you.