|January 24th, 2011||#1|
ZOG vs WN
[will post thoughts from different writers and commenters, as i find them]
The recent attempt to smear American Renaissance by “linking” it to Arizona spree-killer Jared Lee Loughner was rapidly refuted. On closer examination, the sources were bogus, the liars who concocted the claim scuttled for the wainscoting, and Loughner turned out to be a left-wing nutcase.
But the mere fact that the charge was false does not undo all the damage. (One might argue, however, that the damage will at least be mitigated by the free publicity, some of which will draw new readers to American Renaissance.)
Now Harold Covington’s Northwest Front is being smeared with ominous mutterings that he might be linked to the bomb recently found in Spokane Washington along the route of the MLK Day parade.
Of course anybody could have planted that bomb, and there are far more likely suspects than White Nationalists, for example: (1) the same sort of jihadists who planned to blow up Christmas shoppers in Portland, (2) local minorities trying to draw attention and sympathy by manufacturing a fake hate crime directed at them (which is also a real hate crime directed at whites, who are falsely blamed), or (3) the feds themselves, who have a history of false flags and frame-jobs directed at racially conscious whites.
I expect the smears against Covington will eventually be refuted, but the damage will still have been done. (Again, the damage might be mitigated somewhat by the free publicity.)
It’s all very frightening, judging from the repudiations and condemnations of violence issuing from some White Nationalists. These White Nationalists condemn violence, of course, because they are aware of the state’s awesome power to inflict violence on us. They desire to deflect this violence by telling the state: “You’ve got nothing to fear from us. We’re harmless little fuzzballs. We’re chumps who will scrupulously obey the laws concocted and enforced by the people who seek to exterminate us. We don’t think violence will ever be necessary to get our people off the path toward extinction. We think that genocidal anti-white policies are all just a hideous misunderstanding. We’re all men of good will here, our rulers included. We think that the people who put these policies in place will yield power someday if we just get our act together and vote them out. And of course if we ever got power, we would not dream of making them answer for their crimes. We’ll just shake their hands, like the good sports we are, and say ‘Good show old boy. Better luck at the polls next time.’”
Why is violence a bad idea for White Nationalists?
(1) Is violence immoral in itself?
Obviously not. Most people recognize circumstances where violence is legitimate, and self-defense against genocide is the best justification of all. Just look at the state of Israel and Jews around the world. Jews pretty much have a moral blank check for bullying and aggression, all in the name of self-defense. Meanwhile, mere verbal advocacy of white interests is automatically branded hate. Why is that? Because Jews have power, which comes down to violence or a credible threat thereof, and we have none.
People may have some sort of innate moral sense, but the moral sense of the public is not independent of power. The people always pretty much adopt the moral judgments preferred by the people who hold the whip. If the power relations were reversed, people’s moral sensibilities could be changed as well.
(2) Is violence bad because we stand for “the rule of law” against the “barbarism” of power politics?
That is naïve. The people are ruled by law, but the government obviously is not. We are ruled by men, not laws. The men who rule make laws for the rest of us. And the people who rule us now have legislated conditions inimical to the long-term survival of our race.
Law is not independent of power, and power just means violence or the credible threat of violence. Law is merely a product of power. The people who have power make the laws. The people who don’t have power obey them. If White Nationalists gain power, we will make different laws. Until then, we obey their laws because they have more power than we do.
(3) Is violence bad because it will turn people against whoever uses it?
Again, this is naïve. Like I said, people may have some innate moral sense, but most of the moral judgments that come out of their mouths and guide their actions are shaped by the people in power.
People are not innately “anti-violence.” People condemn violence against non-whites because the television and the newspapers tell them to. They do not lose any sleep over that fact that on an average day in America, 100 white women are being raped by black men, because they are kept unaware of that fact, and if they were aware of it, they would keep their mouths shut and not “go there” for fear of being branded racists.
The moral sensibilities of the public are manufactured by people in power, and power reduces to violence or the credible threat of violence. If White Nationalists had power, we could spin the propaganda dial the other way and people’s moral sensibilities would follow.
(4) Is violence a bad idea because it might bring bad publicity?
This is just a variation of point (3) above. Jared Taylor has never advocated violence, publicly or privately. I know this, because I have discussed it with him. Yet that did not stop him from being “linked” by liars to Jared Lee Loughner. Harold Covington writes books filled with revolutionary violence. But publicly and privately, he does not advocate violence under present conditions, and those conditions are likely to attain for a very long time to come. Yet that did not stop him from being “linked” by liars to the Spokane backpack bomb.
Do I really need to spell this out? No matter what we do, no matter how nice we are, we are never going to get good publicity from a media and government controlled by our enemies. Again, good publicity is not independent of power, and we all know what power is. The people in power are capable of telling lies about us and making them stick. Yes, the internet has weakened the control of the establishment somewhat. But do you really think, when push comes to shove, that they are going to allow themselves to be “tweeted” off the stage of history?
Whites will only get good publicity when we have the power to control the media. And we all know what power is.
(5) Is violence a bad idea because the state might arrest or kill those who use it?
Should we never use violence because we might get hurt? People who think that way are natural slaves. The people who rule us are of course willing to use violence, even if they might get hurt (or, more often, their underlings might get hurt), because that is how people gain and keep power.
If White Nationalists are serious about gaining and keeping power, then the people who rule us naturally conclude that we too are willing to risk using violence. Our rulers are not going to be fooled by putting legalistic disclaimers on White Nationalist websites.
Furthermore, the government arrests and imprisons dissidents who have not advocated or committed violence. Matt Hale will spend the rest of his life in prison, even though he did not advocate or commit violence. (It was a federal agent who did that.) Edgar Steele did not advocate or commit violence, but he will probably die in jail, even though it is increasingly clear that he was framed by federal agents and informants.
Folks, if this is getting too scary for you, you need to bail out now.
The Lesson so Far
We are pacified by pious illusions about limited government, the rule of law, and fair play. We are doped with religion, sex, and TV. But ultimately we are ruled by violence and the treat of violence.
If you believe that the system needs to be replaced or radically overhauled, or if you merely believe that we need to throw the bastards who are running things out, our rulers will try to stop you, because they know that none of these things will happen except over their dead bodies. They believe that your very thoughts and aspirations, even if entertained merely in the privacy of your own skull, bear the seeds of violence against them.
They will begin with soft measures: mockery, shunning, job discrimination, and the like. But if you persist, and if you constitute a credible threat, then they will work their way up to harsher measures. This has always been the case. America was founded by violence, expanded by violence, held together by violence, ruled by violence, and exports its violence all over the globe (it is about the only thing we export nowadays).
Being naïve, or merely pretending to be naïve, about the nature of politics and the people who rule us will not save you. Naïveté will probably just get you in more trouble.
A Credible Repudiation of Violence
Merely verbal disclaimers of violence are silly and pointless. If White Nationalist groups and individuals wish to repudiate violence in a credible way, then they should purge their ranks of mentally ill people, the kind of people who flip out and go on shooting sprees.
White Nationalists, despite our professed elitism, tend to be very, very indulgent of mental illness. Perhaps that is because we know that the establishment paints us all as crazy, so we are loath to make distinctions. But we can and must make distinctions. White Nationalists would be crazy not to get depressed from time to time, given how genuinely depressing our situation is. But no serious movement can afford to depend on people with serious mental illnesses and personality disorders like schizophrenia, manic depression, paranoia, narcissism, etc.
We may feel compassion or affection for such people. They may have talents and money. They may want to do their part for the cause. There is no need to be mean to them. But we can’t afford to depend on them, much less place them in positions of trust and responsibility. In 2010, I learned at great cost the folly of associating with manic depressive types and histrionic narcissists, and I have distanced myself from all such people.
Why violence is a bad idea for White Nationalists.
My friends will no doubt interpret the following as a mere rationalization for the pathological squeamishness of a grown man who still covers his eyes when something violent happens on the screen. But attend to my arguments. I think they are sound.
(1) Violence is futile.
Setting aside all considerations of morality and legality and calculating merely in terms of forces and potential outcomes, violence against the system is completely futile. Yes, free men take risks. But only fools pick fights that they can never win.
As I never tire of reminding you, White Nationalists are a tiny, voiceless, powerless, despised minority. We are poorly funded, poorly organized, and poorly led. Our enemies control the greatest instruments of propaganda and coercion in history. We cannot beat them with violence. In fact, they need us to commit violence. They feed on violence, which is why they manufacture violence to blame on us.
Violence is futile, not merely because the enemy can catch and punish the perpetrators, but even more so because they can control how people perceive and react to it. The enemy has the power to assign the meaning and morality to our acts. We will never be seen as freedom fighters or romantic outlaws or heroic martyrs. We will be seen as kooks, sadists, nihilists, terrorists—and with some justice, unfortunately.
We already have enough martyrs. We do not need any more. And martyrdom accomplishes nothing when the enemy determines its meaning. Yukio Mishima’s death meant something in Japan, where the Samurai tradition is still strong. Here, he would be branded a kook and a loser, and it would stick.
(2) Fortunately, violence is unnecessary.
We can’t beat the system now. But I know with absolute metaphysical certainty that the system is going to break down. Nothing lasts forever, especially a society that violates all the laws of nature. I don’t know when the system will fail, but it will almost certainly be within the lifetimes of most of the people reading this.
Thus White Nationalists need to focus our energy and resources on propaganda and community building. We must become a large, resilient, wealthy, powerful community, a state within a state, the core of the next political system in North America: the White Republic.
But that requires discipline, realism, and long-term thinking, including the discipline not to waste our lives and resources in premature and futile confrontations with the system at full strength.
(3) Power isn’t everything.
Throughout this essay, I have stressed the importance of power. In politics, power is more important than legality, public opinion, or moral sensibilities, because those in power create laws and shape people’s opinions, including their moral opinions. They have power and we don’t. As long as this condition persists, they will be able to do what they like with us.
But power isn’t everything. Truth also matters. There are moral opinions, and there is moral truth. There are the laws of men, and there are the laws of nature. (Although Machiavelli was right to observe that unarmed prophets always fail; only the armed prophets succeed.)
As a Traditionalist, I believe that truth is ultimately the source of power, that truth empowers and lies weaken. A civilization rises when it is in harmony with truth, reality, nature, and the life force. A civilization declines as it strays from them. As Spengler points out, a society, like an individual, gains the greatest external wealth and power once it is over the hill and the life force is dying within it.
We have truth, but no power. They have power, but no truth. But the life force surges in us as it ebbs in them, for they have strayed from nature’s way. Our power will wax as their power wanes. Then a day will come when we can revisit the question of violence. But today, that question is closed.
|January 25th, 2011||#3|
Switching to glide
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Morrison Hotel
Blog Entries: 11
I enjoyed reading that. I found the following particularly relevant:
"White Nationalists, despite our professed elitism, tend to be very, very indulgent of mental illness. Perhaps that is because we know that the establishment paints us all as crazy, so we are loath to make distinctions. But we can and must make distinctions. White Nationalists would be crazy not to get depressed from time to time, given how genuinely depressing our situation is. But no serious movement can afford to depend on people with serious mental illnesses and personality disorders like schizophrenia, manic depression, paranoia, narcissism, etc.
We may feel compassion or affection for such people. They may have talents and money. They may want to do their part for the cause. There is no need to be mean to them. But we can’t afford to depend on them, much less place them in positions of trust and responsibility. In 2010, I learned at great cost the folly of associating with manic depressive types and histrionic narcissists, and I have distanced myself from all such people".
I spent a decade in organizational White Nationalism (pre-Internet), and the nutbar ratio, at least at that time, was always far too high. Any one of a hundred stories I could tell would leave you shaking your head.
Nothing I have seen online makes that seem any less true today.
"When US gets nuked and NEMO is uninhabitable, I will make my way on foot to the gulf and live off red snapper and grapefruit"- Alex Linder
|January 26th, 2011||#4|
A very good example is Chester Doles. He built a real world network of dozens of local people, including some authorities, from what I understand. The feds spent literally millions of dollars to infiltrate his group and ultimately bring him down on a technicality.
So don't tell me how WN are the problem. Bullshit. The problem is 99% enemy activity, not WN dress, speech, thoughts, or behavior. The only people who say otherwise are conservatives in WN clothing. People who offer intellectual analysis on the internet, but have never actually tried to much as running a single website with any popular reach on their own. Because if they had, they wouldn't speak so freely about how we are the problem.
Who encourages this attitude most of all? Why, it's the WHINOs. Jared Taylor, more than any other figure, encourages Whites to blame themselves, and their ancestors, while simultaneously FORBIDDING whites from posting documented evidence about the jew-led enemy. No coincidence that JT's organization is funded and directed by jews, who have set him up as the head of the new (white) NAACP, to turn awakening White sentiment into jew-safe channels. You will notice that Jared Taylor's actions are never, ever interrupted or thwarted or talked down by any of the usual anti-White sources. That is because Jared Taylor serves the enemy.
It's examples like the Doles one that are the reason that I continually refer to the Solzhenitsyn quote: until you're prepared to kill and die, there's no genuine self-defense. Because the enemy is simply too well positioned to infiltrate and shut down, by one means or another, any legal effort.
But this brings up the one area I disagree with Johnson: that physical resistance to ZOG is utterly unthinkable and impossible. I really doubt that. I think if you had even a few dozen men of military background, with genuine loyalty, operating in small, separated groups, I think you could frighten the living shit out ZOG and gum up the works fairly easily. Is that worth doing? Do those men exist? Would it help things along? Hard to say. I'd be interested in hearing what Donnie and others with military background think about those questions.
Last edited by Alex Linder; January 26th, 2011 at 11:06 AM.
|January 26th, 2011||#5|
Join Date: Jul 2007
One dividing line between the conservative and the revolutionary is the prospect MacDonald's correspondent refers to of a government crackdown. The conservative fears a crackdown while the revolutionary welcomes it, the more massive, the more indiscriminate, the better. The revolutionary cycle is: resistance→retaliation→recruitment→resistance. That's how this eventually changes:
|January 26th, 2011||#6|
Celebrating My Diversity
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Probably the same scenario regarding Covington.
You would think that KMac with all his brainpower could figure this out.
|January 26th, 2011||#7|
Celebrating My Diversity
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Then they don't need us to commit violence. If they manufacture blame anyway, there's no safety in abstention. You undercut your own argument.
|January 27th, 2011||#8|
Further Thoughts on Violence
What should White Nationalists expect from our leaders on the question of violence? I am writing this not as a leader, or a would-be leader, but as someone who would like to see some honest and credible leadership in the White Nationalist movement.
(1) The Illegitimate Question of Violence
In my previous article on this topic, I argued that real leadership on this issue requires intellectual honesty, political realism, and the adoption of a no kooks policy.
We will never attract intelligent and accomplished people to our cause if we expose them and their work to destruction by coddling kooks who might melt down and then go over to the enemy or simply go on a killing spree.
Here I want to argue that we should also expect moral strength and certainty from our leaders.
The recent discussions of violence have been provoked by the wholly manufactured attempt to link Arizona shooter Jared Lee Loughner to American Renaissance, followed by attempts—based upon no evidence whatsoever—to link Harold Covington’s Northwest Front to the bomb placed along the MLK Day parade route in Spokane, Washington (a bomb that was safely defused).
Jared Taylor’s response to the attack on American Renaissance was entirely appropriate. He pointed out that it had no basis in fact and that the characterizations of American Renaissance were incorrect. It was also appropriate for Harold Covington to respond to the attempts to smear him.
But I do not think it is appropriate for other White Nationalists to respond to such smears by protesting their own innocence and posting legalistic disclaimers of violence on their websites.
When people in our movement are falsely smeared as linked to terrorism, our first instinct should be to defend those who are attacked by pointing out the speciousness or groundlessness of the claims and the blatant anti-white bias in the media and law enforcement.
If, however, one’s first instinct is to say “I am against all violence,” that smacks of throwing the accused under the bus and covering one’s own ass. Protesting your innocence when you have not been accused of anything also smacks of a guilty conscience, which subtly concedes the legitimacy of the attack. That’s not leadership.
Rather than getting defensive, leaders should counter-attack.
One should never allow the enemy to control how an event is framed. If you allow the question “Do White Nationalists advocate violence?” to be posed by the enemy, it does not matter what your answer is. We lose either way.
The proper response is to change the question, to reframe the issue, and to put the enemy on trial: “Why do the media and law enforcement have a bias against racially conscious white people, such that they will run unsubstantiated smears linking us to violence committed by leftists like Loughner or unknown parties like the Spokane bomber?”
Anything less smacks of moral weakness and uncertainty.
(2) The Legitimate Question of Violence
The issue is complicated by the fact that violence is a legitimate topic for political theory and strategy, no matter who raises the question. But in the context of a hostile society, we should be the ones who raise the question and determine the parameters of debate, not axe-grinding middlebrow media demagogues.
As I see it, politics is about power, and power always reduces to violence or the credible threat of violence. Therefore, no credible political movement can renounce violence, for the renunciation of violence is tantamount to the renunciation of politics itself.
This is true even if one aspires merely to participate in a political system that seeks to govern force with law and provides legal procedures like election or impeachment to challenge and replace people in power. The law may provide for the orderly transfer of power, but what ensures that the people in power will respect the law rather than void elections they do not like and tear up constitutions they find too restrictive? Ultimately, it is fear of legal or extralegal retribution, i.e., violence.
There is, however, a politically realistic and intellectually honest argument against violence by White Nationalists. Yes, politics is about power, and power reduces to violence or the threat thereof. But what if it is too early for politics? Specifically, what if it is too late to reform the system and too early to replace it?
Then White Nationalists need to focus on metapolitics, specifically (1) the intellectual development and cultural propagation of our worldview and (2) building a White Nationalist community—a community that is wealthy, powerful, resilient, and dedicated to the perfection and empowerment of its members; a community that can aspire to be the foundation of a future White Republic.
This approach is valid even if the present system could be expected to remain strong for the foreseeable future. In that case, our community would simply have to become very big and very strong to mount a political challenge to the system.
But fortunately there is every reason to believe that the system is in steep and irreversible decline. Honestly, is there anything that White Nationalists could do to destroy the system better than its currents masters?
Well, I am sure that someone out there could think of something. But I am not sure I want to hasten the end of the United States. My greatest fear is that the system will collapse too soon, long before our community is powerful enough to create a white homeland.
We are few, scattered, voiceless, and powerless. The system is vast and powerful, but it is destroying itself. Time may be short, e.g., we may have only a few decades. So we need to focus our time, energy, and resources not on destroying the system but on creating an alternative.
|January 27th, 2011||#9|
Johnson makes a rhetorical and political mistake in continuing to insist that we are few and powerless. The correct position is that we, not the jews, speak for the White community, and the minute their control mechanisms fail, they will taste the other side of the sword.
|July 16th, 2015||#10|
Join Date: Jun 2015
Sorry for coming to things so late, but I think this thread is even more relevant today, considering the Dylan Roof shootings and other recent happenings.
Peaceful movement demands change. Government ignores it.
Violent movement blows shit up. Government cracks down on it, peaceful movement denounces violent group.
More action from violent movement. Government cracks down further, declares it will never negotiate with terrorists... then goes to the bargaining table with the peaceful movement that they had previously ignored. Somehow an agreement with the peaceful group is also upheld by the violent group that supposedly doesn't have any links to the peaceful group.
Hagganah/ Irgun. IRA/ Sinn Fein. PLO/ most other Palestinian groups. ANC/ MK.
The problem with hoping for a crash is that the other side is hoping for a crash too, as they can then abandon all pretext of law and fairness.
Jewish strategy in Ukraine, Greece, and everywhere else when things crash and carpetbaggers can come in to buy for pennies on the shekel.
Governments are good at keeping things wheezing along the cliff. What topples civilizations is when something unexpected comes along to push them over the cliff. For this reason, no matter what charts and graphs say, you cannot predict when things will fall apart. This is often not a good time to be alive, but the victors in this age will be the ones whose offspring are sitting pretty in a few centuries.
Great points. I too think that that not everything is doom n' gloom. In many ways I think this is our "Babylonian Exile", and if we come through it we shall be much stronger and cohesive than ever before.
Don't watch this unless you want to puke from listening to AC self-righteously yammer on. The title says it all.
I don't think there is necessarily as big a divide between conservatives, revolutionaries and practical people as you paint. I think that conservative principles would go a long way towards whitening up our society, even without any overt racial laws. But I also realize that peaceful politics is unlikely to work. I work to build my personal network, not WNists necessarily but just normal people (with at least some racial realism) that can help each other when needed.
Too many people here seem to think that the battle is going to be fought on some ethereal plane, with victory going to whoever's ideology is the most pure. Most of the combatants won't be ideologues at all, just normal people trying to get by in a world sliding downhill.
On our failure to get good leadership:
I think both of you are right.
Obviously we have been sabotaged when it comes to leadership, but so what? How could you expect otherwise? Catch-22 : If our leadership wasn't being sabotaged, we wouldn't need leadership.
Solutions/ historical examples:
Cell structure. Leaderless resistance. Committees of Correspondence.
Besides sabotage we also have a problem with lots of cranks. Anyone with good org skills probably has a good job which he would certainly lose if he comes out in the open. The examples given of jail are from extreme cases, and there are a lot of leaders who come out that don't have that happen to them... but coming out for WNism pretty much destroys any chance of a great job in the system. Pierce made his money, then went into organizing WNism.
I don't think WNism could ever become very popular under the current system. It will always be a minority viewpoint unless it takes over the education and media establishments. This could be done by sneaking into power, like Hitler did. He ran on a platform of rainbows and unicorns for everyone, then after he cemented his power he began enacting his real agenda. This is why I never discount anyone simply because they don't go full-on foam at the mouth WN, like Jared Taylor. They might simply be playing the long game.
What I think TPTB truly fears is a mass uprising from general discontent, not from a specific ideology or group. Specific groups like WNists could have a field day during the chaos of such an uprising if they were prepared. During the Ferguson or Baltimore riots a lot of scores could have been settled.
The jews are still freaked about Medger Evers and he wasn't even jewish.
|July 1st, 2011||#11|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Covington to this day claims that he signed Hinckley's NSPA membership card and that Hinckley was carrying it when he shot Reagan, but if that had been the case then the Secret Service wouldn't have dismissed the connection as they did.
Greg Johnson needs to wise up about Covington. Covington is the carny and Johnson is the rube.
Anti-Nazi is a codeword for anti-White.
Last edited by Hadding; July 2nd, 2011 at 12:00 AM.