Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
White Rev by Gerald Morris
Does anybody have the article "White revolution: Electionaeering, when and why, a few throughts By Gerald E Morris"?
This article was a memorable one, from VNN 7/25/03. Bill White sabotaged the VNN database, about a month or two after that so it is not currently in the archive. I tried to recover it off the net for an hour. Luckily I have a printed version which I will scan and upload next week if nobody can help find this.
Whatever happend to Gerry Morris? A damn good writer. Here is another example of his work that we did not lose:
http://vanguardnewsnetwork.com/index394.htm
July 13, 2002
Quote:
M. Adams wrote a masterful essay "On Achieving Power" through opportunism 7/3/02. While he makes some accurate observations about "the movement" and even some tactical suggestions of some merit, on the whole, it betrays his own racial treason.
His essay begins with examples of ancient Roman powermongers who were initially well placed and who sought nothing more than advancement of their own careers. Yes, they "achieved power" but what was the consequence? Corrupt monarchy with secure positions for jewish moneylenders! A worthy study to be assured!
There is nothing wrong per se with his next platitude: "There are multiple ways to achieve power. The difference between incompetence and competence is how adaptable one is to the fluctuating opportunities. It can happen any way, any time, and in stages or all at once. It also depends on how good one is at exploiting situations." True true, but are we talking about individuals or organizations? This is easy enough for individuals but when one has a revolutionary organization to answer to, one has responsibilities to it. When the "one" is taking power on behalf of his race, the responsibility is for that race and nothing less.
Adams then uses the example of Hitler's rise to power well enough but screws up on the assessment of what followed. "Hitler just barely got in (by a nose hair), and the timing and events for this were beautiful for takeover. When he got in he MAXIMIZED his presence and acted quickly to liquidate the enemy." Hitler did NOT "MAXIMIZE" his presence nor act quickly to liquidate the enemy. Oh, the Nazi government jailed some commies and outlawed them, but there were plenty of kikes left roaming at large. The Nazi government would prosecute Germans for crimes against jews all throughout its reign. They would take hard currency in exchange for letting jews leave Germany alive for Palestine. There were still plenty of kikes alive IN GERMANY when the Allied Pig Armies stormed, burned, raped and looted their way into Germany. Why was this so? Hitler "worked within the system" and wanted to "keep up appearances," to be "respectable" within the eyes of the bourgeiosie which used him alright but despised him in general, the adoring Friedrich Krupp notwithstanding. All of these mistakes arose from the very same opportunism which Adams preaches. Hitler didn't live to pay for these sins of omission but Germany today toils for the zionist kike which Heydrich was willing to take money from. The lesson here is clear: WORKING WITHIN THE SYSTEM IS NO WAY TO CARRY OFF A REVOLUTION!
Adams then points out something that makes a good rule for any ruler to follow. "Hitler had some good men around him too, and I mean REAL thinkers, not the least of which were Goebbels and Himmler/Heydrich, who made things run much smoother." Yes, Hitler did assemble some bright and capable lieutenants, Dr. Goebbels being the best and most loyal of them. Himmler did good work with his creation of the S.S. and even created the Thule Society as a suitable "secret society" for those sort of mischievous overgrown boys who are apt to join these kind of circle jerks. He did so to make a suitably Aryan alternative to freemasonry available to his men. Himmler in the end was loyal only to Himmler though, and like Goering, betrayed his Fueher in the end. Unlike Goering, he didn't redeem himself at Nuremburg. Both Goering and Himmler used Hitler during the Night of Long Knives to achieve their own petty vendettas. Had Hitler actually bought the loyalty of the Army with this, it would have been worth it. As it was, the Army never gave more than lukewarm support to the Reich government. Adams neglected to mention Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht among those "REAL thinkers." An oversight perhaps? Probably not. Here is what David Irving writes of Schacht in his "Nuremburg: The Last Battle, C-17: Schacht Saved on the Square, p 225:"
Even more irritating for Jackson was that Schacht was overheard in the cells confidently predicting that he would be acquitted. Irritating rumours circulated that the prosecution of Schacht was not in earnest. Letter-writers taunted Jackson that he would never succeed in convicting a big banker whether friend or foe, they were the new Untouchables.
He soon became aware that the Nazi banker did indeed have friends in the most unlikely places and influence everywhere. One day one of his team, the eminent New York international lawyer Ralph Albrecht, reported to him that the British assistant prosecutor Colonel Harry J. Phillimore -- later a lord justice of appeal in London* -- had accosted him in the hall outside the courtroom and urged the Americans to relax their remorseless pressure on the banker. When Albrecht, perplexed, asked Why?, Phillimore uneasily explained that certain representations had been made by Sir Montagu Norman, governor of the Bank of England from 1920 to 1944. It would be most unfortunate, murmured the British colonel, if anything were to happen to Schacht. 712 In fact Schacht had been an informer of Sir Montagu, secretly apprising him of the political and financial decisions taken at the highest level in Berlin for sixteen years before the war.713"
In the footnotes Irving explains why this peculiar encounter on behalf of Schacht occurred.
*Twenty-five years later Phillimore was one of the three judges who heard this author's appeal in the landmark Convoy PQ.17 libel action, Cassell & Co. v. Broome. Phillimore, Schacht, Montagu Norman, and Sir Norman Birkett, one of the British judges who held out for Schacht s acquittal in 1946, were all freemasons. Jackson was also a leading mason; his diary entry for June 16, 1945 records a conversation in which Truman, Grand Master of the Masons of Missouri, showed him his gavel (Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, R H Jackson papers, box 95)."
There you have it. Hitler hired Schacht to build the Reich economy and this he did. How did Schacht repay the Fuehrer's trust? By spying on him, betraying his country to his masonic "brothers" in England. Such are the fruits of "working within the system." NEVER trust a freemason, White Man!
Adams then wrote: " Hitler had a lot of powerful people backing him and he DID work within the system. ... Hitler was hobnobbing with the rich and powerful telling them WHAT THEY WANTED TO HEAR. He wasn't trying to appeal to their sense of "justice" or racial awareness. Those vultures could give a shit about that. They wanted to know two things: 1) Are my monies safe?; 2) What do we get out of it? Defense contracts, exclusive deals, etc. (at least that is what you would "promise" them)."
The Party only got "respectable" later. One of Hitler's first Big Bourgeois backers was none other than Henry Ford. Ford liked Hitler for his courageous stance on jews and such. This was during the period of Ford's life when he was agitating through his newspaper, the Dearborn Independent. A LOT of Ford's and Hitler's weltanschaaung was formed by the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Ford believed them to be authentic. I don't. Hitler's first and for a long time only Big Money German supporter was Carl Duisberg of I.G. Farben, who was looking for "a strong man" in 1925. Hitler didn't really get much backing until the Party dropped its plans for nationalizing German industry in 1931, when Fritz Thyssen joined. They would have been better off to have quietly executed the lot of the unreliable Schlotbaronen after consolidating power. These buzzards only cared about their profits, sold the German people a lot of second-rate equipment, wouldn't coordinate their activites -- all to the detriment of the Cause. Stalin's government suffered from none of the maladies that plagued the Nazi regime because Stalin was truly ruthless and knew that business bean counters and army oaficers are worth a dime a dozen. Stalin enjoyed a completely unified command, and Hitler envied it as well he should.
"We will fail so long as we are on the outside looking in instead of on the inside looking out."
Platitudes, platitudes! How many masonic platitudes can you puke M. Adams? Bullshit! We will fail so long as we adopt the craven policy you preach. Fuck that! Take it to your bro' Freddy Reed and shove it up his ass! Then, he can do you. We need to piss gasoline from Outside to In and have the torches ready. THAT will get the compliance we need.
Adams then makes some perfectly cogent observations:
If anyone ever posed a serious threat, let's take Dr. Pierce (who would come the closest at this point as far as an identifiable target is concerned), and "they" were concerned, he would end up with a bullet to the head or everything he built up liquidated almost overnight (forget "Justice" when you have the trigger of power). Very easily done.
Yep! Disappeared! Carcass found in bitty bits in a cow pasture. This is why we should pack heat at all times possible. Make it expensive for "them" to pop your ass. We must organize to the point where we can retaliate in like fashion. That's the sort of language the pigs understand. Of course, one could take the "bullet to the head" remark as a none-too-veiled threat as well as an observation.
"It is possible a Turner Diaries scenario could happen but very unlikely." Agreed. The point is not to tail events and wait for something to happen but to MAKE THINGS HAPPEN! A small, well-disciplined revolutionary organization can do just that. It won't be easy, but we are fighting for our lives and the lives of our posterity. We have no choice but victory or surrender.
"What is more likely is a semblance of that and "da rich folks" worried about their wealth (mestizos and niggers wanted to expropriate their property) and looking for a "savior" (re: Augustus Caesar in a breaking down Rome)."
Yes, the bourgeoisie will be feeling uncomfortable. We can't afford to completely write them off. I suggest we emulate Hitler in one regard - get some foreign backing for the nonce. (Ford) We can use domestic cash too, but certain principles of sound organization must be adhered to. Better to have organizational/ideological integrity than easy cash today. Build the organization first and instill it with the right ideas. The money will come. Even then, beware of who wants to buy you.
"It is extremely naive to think that it can only happen one way. I find only Christians are usually that fucking stupid."
Amen, amen. We must have many plans and be able to act on them. The consequences of any action must be well thought out. Kowtowing to the shitty status quo is NOT an option though. Fuck that!
Adams shows some real understanding of "what is to be done" in this next bit.
The truly clever would be getting the niggers and Mexcrement stirred up (implanting in their heads that the 'governmint' owes them slavery reparations, the southwest JewSA is actually Aztlan, etc.) whilst trying to evangelize to our white brethren. Look how the communists do it. They are the absolute best at exploiting situations and opportunities. I've been to their meetings and find their tactics interesting.
I too have been to communist meetings. I was a member of the CPUSA. Some of their shit is useful. Goebbels won the battle for Berlin by a well-studied pitch to the proles there. There are plenty of activists out there just itching to fight the Establishment, and the commies have been better at getting them into THEIR organizations, toeing THEIR line and doing work for THEIR masters, the kikes, than nationalists have been in many countries, including this one. The best way to fight communist and other jew-spawned ideologies is with a strong racial appeal combined with the call for in-group altruism ergo National Socialism. Stirring up the darkies by appealing to their own sense of national identity and stampeding more of our White relatives into our arms also smacks of a good strategic sense. Likewise, it helps break the kind of sickening interracial "solidarity" the jew-communist miscegenationist seeks to forge. Of course, the kikes could be using various racial tensions to stampede the herd into supporting an ever more repressive regime favoring them -- and they DO control the government/media.
Adams then shits with his keyboard: "I think I should mention this while I'm at it: Hitler, Trotsky, Stalin and Lenin were all spies for the "federal government" of the time. I'm not making an opinion on it, I'm just letting you know these facts."
His presentation of these "facts" grossly misleads the reader, if ignorant of the truth of the matter. Here it is. Hitler DID join Anton Drexler's German Workers Party under orders from the Army. He decided that he liked the Party better than the lickspittle Weimar government. The rest is history. Bronstein (Trotsky) certainly ran an errand as bag boy from Jew York's own Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., bringing much-needed cash to Ulyanov (Lenin) in 1917 at a crucial time. This hardly can be equated with collaboration with the Czar's government, though it might be supposed that the Jew S. government of Woodrow Wilson knew of it. Ulyanov (Lenin) himself was in exile in Switzerland for most of Russia's war and only returned with the connivance of the Kaiser's government in a sealed train car in March 1917, shortly after the "February Revolution." There is no evidence that Lenin collaborated with the Czar's regime though, ever. The accusation that Djuggashvili (Stalin) collaborated with the Okhrana, the Czarist secret police, came from Bronstein after the scribbling little kike was booted out of Russia by Stalin. It is conceivable that the Reds did snitch off some anarchists from time to time, just as the Blacks (anarchists) have been accused of so doing by the Reds. The burden of proof lies on Adams to substantiate his "factual" ex-cathedra claim. Don't hold your breath waiting.
....
|
|