View Single Post
Old December 15th, 2009 #43
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter Wallace View Post
It is a personal attack, a low blow, a cheap shot. It is the verbal equivilant of a kick in the groin or an eye gouge.
Mmm...I'm not persuaded. Read up on homosexuality. It's not a light thing. There's a reason he didn't disclose it...to me...knowing I don't like it...when he first showed up at VNN. Not really that honorable behavior you're talking about, is it?

Quote:
Yes, I know Greg Johnson. We've met several times. We talk on the phone all the time. I don't know many people who are more valuable assets to the movement. I've heard you say that he wrote some of the best articles ever published by VNN. As for his sexuality, I have never asked him about the matter. Like your Chron's disease, I don't consider it relevant to the struggle we are engaged in.
Ulcerative colitis is not a deviant sexual behavior reflecting mental perversion. If I'd acquired UC by chronically sodomizing duct-taped field mice, you'd be irresponsible not to raise questions. How many queers can you high-roaders draft into your ranks before your righteous wholesomeness starts to stink up your pitch to the whites mesmerized by MTV?

Quote:
If I am not in a position to know this, then I am certain you are not either. Even if it were true, it is nowhere near as much of a concern as the flaws of people like Bill White, Rounder, or Hal Turner, not to mention Todd in FL, the amateur bombmaker who used to post here.
Yeah...comparing apples and oranges, rather obviously. Posting on a web forum is hardly the same as occupying a prominent WN post.

Quote:
There are substantial criticisms of Sam Francis to be made. He was too soft on the Jews. He was too critical of anti-Semites. He tried to keep a foot in both words, conservative and racialist. To a point, I agree with you.

The personal attacks on Francis - he was an obese homosexual loser - detract from your case. They create sympathy for Francis.
I called him an obese loser, which he was. I only speculated he was a queer. I never accused because I don't know it for a fact. With Johnson, I accused. And so far, neither Johnson nor any of his defenders has denied the charge.

Quote:
Taylor is the most courtly, regal person I know.
Yes. That would be the polish in the 'Polished.'

Quote:
He conducts himself as a gentleman.
Not in his argumentation. He is dirty as hell in his intellectualizing, his stock in trade.

You started making by excuses for homosexuals; now you're making excuses for jew-exculpaters. I'm afraid this trail will end in the mouth of an alligator!

Quote:
This is one of his greatest assets. He doesn't come across as a stereotypical racist. People who would instantly dismiss a Rounder or ANSWP Commander Bill White pay attention to Taylor when he speaks.
Would you agree the Nazis are winners? Would you agree the jews are winners? Find me Taylor's equivalent in either of those two camps. Even if Taylor were 100% successful in getting people to hate niggers - that's like trying to persuade people to like ice cream. You've even said this yourself, in your rational moments. Regardless of your admiration for his leonine carriage, you should be able to see that no one as smart as Taylor would act the way he does - unless he were running a deeper game. EMJones has figured it out. I've figured it out. Michael Piper has figured it out. Why can't you? Are you really that bedazzled by manners? Funny thing is, you hate conservatives, but you are one. You value custom, propriety and bearing like a good Southerner. You are a functional conservative, just as MacDonald and the high-road crew are implicit conservatives.

Quote:
This is untrue. I believe Taylor is an asset. He is like a racialist high school teacher. He introduces implicit whites to the basics of racial consciousness. He's good at doing that and I support his work.
We've been over this and over this. You know that whites already know the truth about race. You've said it. You know the stats about relocating whites moving to whiter areas, whites voting against affirmative action and open borders.

Quote:
I have a different standard. While I loathe conservatism, I see incrementalism as unavoidable. I define victory as pulling the national discourse on race and Jews in our direction. Taylor and Buchanan are gateways to White Nationalism.
Was the Catholic Center Party a gateway to Nazism? There are no gateways. Especially not in the age of the Internet.

Quote:
They bring aspects of our message to a larger audience. I myself followed that path into the movement. How can I condemn Buchanan when it was one of his books that led me to White Nationalism?
Uh, to be unmannerly, I don't really believe you. You've been on the internet for ten years and surely have seen harder stuff than you ever got in his books.

Quote:
You're more of a conservative than I am. You know this, Alex.
Yes and no. Yes in that I have a small businessman's respect for the market, whereas you have an academic's respect for the government. And yes in the sense I read Burke and Kirk and some libertarians whereas you read some leftists and communitarians. No in the sense I do not share your respect for manners and propriety when they come at the expensive of effective terms and tactics. Another big functional difference between us is that my entire being is hypersensitively, almost neurasthenically, attuned to the use of terms to pre-win arguments. You by contrast are very, very functionally conservative in using the terms as they are conventionally used. Not saying you don't occasionally coin or appreciate neologism, but to say your default standard is conventional usage. It's parallel to your respect for manners. (I'm all for conventional manners at the dinner table, but not in political warfare, which is in most times carried out in term-struggles and only sometimes on the field.) So it's not so simple to say who is the real conservative.

Quote:
You have a lot of substantial criticisms of all of the above (Francis included). Once again, I agree with you to a point. Your conclusion, however, is vanguardist purism. It is myopic to believe that everyone can start out as radical as you are. To newbies, you sound like you are from Neptune.
Terms like vanguardist, mainstream, extremist, purist - they don't mean anything to me, they're just adjectives applied to make the user feel good and the labeled feel weird. As for style, the humor and emotion the MacDonald's throw overboard so they can say they're taking the high road are what allow people to stick with the VNN view until the truth of what we're saying sinks in. It takes no more than two weeks in the vast majority of cases. I'm not speculating, I'm reporting what many, many people initially shocked by my spintros told me. They were repulsed, then converted. Quickly. Analogous to diving into swimming pool. Shocked briefly, then swimming happily.

Quote:
I don't know of any homosexuals inside TOQ. Do you have any hard evidence of this?
No, sir, I do not. I speculate. Based on the established fact that tiny, perverse minorities feel best among their own, and actively network to that end.

Quote:
Where did Edmund Connolly use the term?
He didn't. As I have said more than once, he, uh, borrowed the concept of needing a mirror term to racism and made it the basis of his essay. He certainly had read what I have written on this subject multiple times over the years - that is why he deliberately refrained from using my coinage loxism, while fretting over the lack of terms. The dog that didn't bark. Not Aryan behavior. But neither is sodomy. I guess taking the high road means overlooking sodomy and plagiarism while distancing ourself from that dirty VNN and their nasty vulgarities.

Quote:
MacDonald probably has the same perspective I do: it is easier for us to reach and influence Buchanan's readers than other conservatives. Buchanan is a key player in popularizing our ideas on the far end of the conservative spectrum. He is a gateway to the mainstream. Buchanan and Taylor generally don't attack us. An enemy would return fire.
Taylor doesn't attack VNN, for example, because he has no arguments. Anything he said would look stupid - if his intent were what he claims it is. As it is not, he must stay far, far away from anyone who sees what he's up to. Which he does.

Buchanan doesn't acknowledge us because we don't threaten his income. We exist to him as something he can steal occasional ideas from to preserve his position as the farthest right you can be while remaining respectable. What you and MacDonald can't figure out is that you'd make more inroads with his readers by attacking him, as I do, than defending him, or mentioning him with respect, as MacDonald does. That's an advanced lesson, and neither you nor he are to that level yet. But, and the reason i'm wasting time responding to you, is that you have indicated willingness to adjust your view based on facts, as you came around on the jew thing. In time you will see what I am saying. it might take five years. It might take ten. The reason i tell you is that a whole shark herd of us attacking him simultaneously would be a great force multiplier. It would polarize the spectrum in the public mind between whites and jews rather than conservagives and liberals, the two-party charade the Buchanans you think you should respect help maintain. As I say, this is an advanced lesson. Its truth will not be apparent to you for a few years. MacDonald will never grasp it.

Quote:
As a practical matter, what would you have us do? How would you reach into the mainstream? How would you overcome the Neptune Effect?
I got VNN up to 10k on Alexa using humor and emotion, with rich creamy white fact-nougaty goodness in the middle. But you go follow Kevin. I'm sure he can do the same, employing queers and judiciously, high-mindedly throwing humor and emotion to the wind - with the hilarious exception of $PLC.

To turn straight-serious, since you seem to prefer that, the way you win is to polarize. You polarize by vicious funny factual - whatever you got, use it, use it all and make more and throw it hard as you can - attacks on jews and liberals and conservatives including Buchanan and Taylor. You do this over and over and over and over, for years. You couple it with a white activist group. Not essay writers - hush crime spotlighters. They force their way into the mainstream, being utterly uncompromising. At the bottom of their agitation materials you promote your uncompromising hub website. Out of this a party grows. Vicious, complete hostility and nasty humor (and all the other good shit you can gin up), totally towing a racially correct line that We are Whites and Jews are the Enemy. Above all what must be done is make the public see first that the two sides doing battle are WHITES and jews. And second, that whites, sooner or later, are going to win - and they'd better get their ass on the winining side of it will go hard for them.

That's how you do it.

Quote:
Of course we should criticize others in the movement. I've criticized Brimelow, Taylor, Buchanan and Francis myself. The question is how we should go about doing it.
How do the winners do it? How do the jews do it? Politely? Or with vicious smears backed by the FBI?

Now, how do the MacDonalds recommend fighting back? Trick question. They don't. They recommend being polite. Overlooking homosexuality. Eschewing all humor save the limpdickiest like $PLC. These babes in the woods have no flipping idea what they're doing. Not the slightest. It's because they have pleasant, ingratiating, middle-class morals and manners, and don't want to consider that these aren't the things that can beat the enemy. Even when they analyze correctly, their implicit conservatism - desire for tastefullness and respectability - overwhelm the analytical conclusions they know to be right. That's the secret to the hold VNN has over them, why everything they do seems in response to a meme we've generated here. It's the cognitive dissonance generated by their knowing we, I, am right, but being unable to overcome their instinctual, emotional, limbic tropism to propriety. To say the least, the jews aren't burdened by this. They go for the jugular. They are the ones to watch, learn from, and emulate.

Quote:
I don't think anyone minds you making fair and reasonable criticisms of TOO/TOQ. That's not the issue.
As if to prove my point - what have fair and reasonable got to do with anything? More functional conservatism. I don't want to be fair and reasonable, I want to win. I know how. I don't think the Buchanan tribute band featuring lead singer Fairy and backup band The Reasonables do.

Quote:
We're trying to reach people who are scientifically literate, intelligent, and well educated. Unlike the man on the street, these people typically have money and influence.
Yes, this is the crux of the problem here, which neither you, nor the fairy, nor MacDonald understand. Even if you persuade the rich smart guy you're right, it doesn't make him one whit more inclined to risk his body and booty. I mean, it's not like you're offering leadership, are you? No, you're writing essays. Is anybody in the TOQ crew intending to actually lead us to the promised land? Hell, no. They don't even pretend that. They're just interested in duplicating Vdare's fundraising success, is my guess. More essays, more books, more arguments - like we don't already have all we need.

Verbiage, save it is vicious and polarizing, is utterly worthless to us at this point.

Quote:
I will save this for my upcoming plunge into conservatism/libertarianism. In the meantime, I will hold this up as an excellent example of what I call "discourse poisoning"; in this case, the penetration of libertarian memes into White Nationalism.
Do that, I will certainly respond to whatever you write. Penetration of the idea that a White Man doesn't have to work fifty percent of his time as a slave for ZOG or even AOG doesn't seem that horrible to me.

Quote:
A HS curriculum is a good idea. It is a worthy project. Rusty Mason had expressed interest in doing it. You should speak with him.
Never heard of him. If you can find someone who actually is serious about this, and knows how to do it, I would certainly be interested in helping, especially by raising money to pay for its development.

Quote:
I've seen Brimelow deny being a White Nationalist before. Again, there are substantial criticisms of Brimelow to be made, but they don't have to be teethered to the albatross of personal attacks or abusive language.
Don't have to be, should be. Personal attacks are good. Brimelow practically blew a gasket when E. Michael Jones criticized jews. But people think he's on our side. He's not. A black and indelible line must be drawn between our side and right-wingism. That's the only way we can raise our profile in the public eye, the only way we can succeed. As I've said for years.

Last edited by Alex Linder; December 15th, 2009 at 09:25 AM.