FriendlyNazi
New Member
Simply awesome.
Simply awesome: He is a sort of racist political genius.
(I now quote him):
Agreed. The same message can be adapted to any audience, from a five-year-old, to a physics PhD.
Agreed. The old Jesuit strategy applies - meet the people where they are, and draw them back to the right path.
Agreed. But this is merely common sense.
This is where I don't agree. First, why do you have to scream? You don't. You can simply use those slurs. Without screaming. Like Mencken or Revilo Oliver did. Or any White man in the country in the first half of the last century. It is simply a measure of your class background that you associate slurs with screaming.
Second, you're misidentifying what actually bothers John/Jane Doe. It's not the use of slurs, it's that your position is known to be socially disreputable. She's worried that you will damage her social status. John Doe has no problem using ACCEPTABLE slurs - for whites, for Muslims. He is only "bothered" by slurs against officially exalted groups. And we know from surveys that his behavior is likely to be what the jew-left would call racist. To the extent he can act 'racist' privately and legally, John Doe, your average white guy, usually does. Certainly, more often than not, he moves to a whiter neighborhood, and he lives, works, marries, and breeds with people like himself.
People like John Doe are not where revolutionary change come from. And this is my main point. For reaching out, you need what Rockwell said - an offering for the semi-literate farmer as well as the French diplomat.
But we should be getting past that stage, to where that reaching out, in all formats, to all tastes, is running like an indoor heating system, as part of the infrastructure.
The need now, and the difficult problem, is to build a political change group. Such efforts as there are, are merely ordinary democratic conservatism, with no hope for making real change. And these are the ones reasonably described as obsessed with appearances, manners, propriety -- how we look to others.
My argument is we need revolutionary change, and that might as well start with our language. We build a new world, virtually, online, as a precursor to something in the real world. Of course it would be great if we could do both simultaneously, but I can't even persuade people to exclude those who favor jews over whites from our movement. They're just thoughtlessly lumped in.
WN must at all costs POLARIZE the country between jews and Whites. That is the #1 political task. Talking in the same terms everyone else does doesn't help that. What you don't realize is that precisely what John Doe needs to hear is "cupcakeer." He will never join our movement until it appears to be at least as likely to triumph as be crushed, but the mere use of a term like 'cupcakeer' at least shows him an entirely different conception of things than he's accustomed to. He will reject it? Sure. But he'll be aware of it. It's not like he's going to be brought around by your argument and sign up to join your side. That will only come when you're winning, and the only kind of people who can actually create a winning team out of a matrix of losers are those not scared off by such terms. So it those people we should be concerned about, the nucleus of the white change organ.
Anything short of that is simply conservatism. It's focused on me-tooing the Republicans, tv talk show heads, and bookselling writers. And the larger sites like Free Republic. Having a different "take" from the mainstream but using their terms and frames, and discussing their issues - that is conservatism, no matter what it calls itself. It always loses.
The goal must be to create a true alternative. A different world, with different values, filled with different people. The best way to create that world is to start with the terms we use, and what could more radically differentiate what Whites have to offer than taking the holiest of holies, the taboo of all taboos, and stomping it into the mud. Giving it the good ol' jew treatment - treating their scared cows the way they treat everything we respect. That's how we polarize, and show our strength, and attract the minority among our race with anything to offer. If we can't even do it verbally, how will we ever do it physically. Or maybe your unquestioned, unrealized assumption that if we're just polite enough, we'll attract enough people to vote our number into power and change things to our liking is correct. I don't think so.
WN should begin by deciding whether it simply a middle-class vote-getting option, in which case it should act like the other useless parties, or it should choose to be something radical, in which it must follow an entirely different strategy with attendant rules.
Right now, there is no movement, there is just haze.
Evidence? This is merely your opinion. You grant far too high an importance to what Jane or Joe Middle Class American thinks. What they think is not actually a thought, but twin fear and status tropisms. If you are on top, you can get them to do whatever you want. The terms you use have little to do with it. If you're the outgroup, publicly seen to be evil and bad, no argument you make will have effect. And even if you do persuade some people intellectually, so what? They're not going to do anything because there's too much danger. Change doesn't come from middle class people, and talk of attracting them or persuading them as though WN were just another party-political option is beside the point.
The concern is not to persuade people, it's to build up a power than can defeat the jews. Once you have that, you have the mass media and the enforcement mechanism and your disposal. And whatever those say today is what the Janes and Joes repeat tomorrow. It truly is that simple. Most people are not motivated by logical, intellectual conclusions, they are motivated by animal tropisms such as obtaining food, satisfying sexual desire, and even more than these, avoiding situations that produce fear. it is safe to be a democrat. It is safe to be a Republican. It is not safe to be White. That's how these people think, but it isn't thinking at all, it's in the marrow and heart, not in the brain. If being right mattered, we would have won a long time ago, because better men than we puzzled this all out long ago.
I don't agree. I believe what GLRockwell said, which is theopposite of what you're saying: trying to use facts and reasons with the mass of people is the eternal stumbling block of the right. You wouldn't call yourself conservative, or what you're doing a conservative strategy, but it is. And it can't work. Gaining a lot of page views is easy. But that is merely a measure of the quality of entertainment, one provides, not a measure of genuine willingness to come together to produce the change we need.
Are they turned off by Glenn Beck or Michael Savage screaming about black beasts and Muslim terrorists? No. So there must be some other factor at work. The one I mentioned above. It's WHO is being slurred, not the slurring or cursing itself, that bothers them, since they know the powers that be have made a certain set of slurs acceptable and another set taboo.
It's not a matter of hard or soft; that you think it is shows you don't grasp what's actually going on. You're thinking on one level, but not the right level.
Let's say you reach 1000 people. You persuade, say, 100 of them. What does that mean? If you're SF or some other group it means they will keep coming back for the wisdom and entertainment, and hopefully write you subsidy checks. Ok, that's fine.
What does it mean in terms of real political change?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
And over time, becoming addicted to the numbers game (numbers of readers and incoming checks), keeping and cultivating that market becomes the be-all. And so you begin to airstream debate, to shrink from what you might have said before you had an audience. Just to make sure you don't offend anybody, or drive them away. That would reduce your income. In any democratic system, the more you offend, the more votes you lose. So you learn to lie and camouflage and conceal. Most in WN see this as the way to go. I don't. I think we ought to offer what the democratic system does not.
Where's the White change in the just-another-party-appealing-for-votes approach?
Nowhere. It's just a version of what the Republican party or Free Republic does. A way to make money for the owner-operators, but do nothing to produce the change we need.
For that there must be agreement on who we are, and what we want. We don't have that yet. Using slurs and coinages is a better way to produce that type than any I know of.
Can our cause be reduced to a party-political position? Or is it a life-and-death matter concerning the context in which our kind will live?
If you answer yes to the former, than a focus on appearances an manners might, i say MIGHT, make sense. But only if you believe you can achieve your end goal as one of a number of players within the established System.
If you want something radically different, then using the agreed on set of taboos and cliches, the ones promulgated by the jew masters, accustoming us to them through inevitable and ceaseless repetition through all official, institutional and quasi-official outlets - is crazy.
Yeah, this is the old partyline dogma, and it's wrong. You're worried about being called names. So you're going to bring them over to racism without their realizing you're racist. That will never work. They're not as dumb as you think, and their opposition to you comes from different sources than you realize. Plenty of them don't have to be persuaded that racism is right, we know that from their behavior. Their opposition to you springs out of fear, physical and status, and they won't change until they have a reason to get past that fear, either dire circumstances, such as a social breakdown, or because you have something so wildly attractive they just have to have it. Which is not what the factualists have on tap. There is no word string you can devise, no truther video you can make, that will outweigh the impression made by the cupcakeers in the Denny's video. This stuff is exactly analogous to animals fighting over mating rights, with the masses being the female to be fucked by the winner. The female attitude, and I had one say this to me in exactly these words, and it caused an epiphany, is "if you were right, you'd be running things." This was a high-IQ female too, not even an average or dumb one, a very high-IQ female. It really is that simple. Authority is right because it's authority.
Why do you think people signed up with the Nazis? Because Hitler had good arguments?
Or because they believed, based on his proven record, and something they saw in his eyes, that he would lay down his last atom to back his breath with his body, and they knew that Germany needed some very, very serious change.
If you think about that, you can probably figure it out.
That is the difference. This stuff on the internet is silly word games. If we don't have a physical way to resist, in some form, and ultimately in all forms, the enemy, then we have nothing. This stuff is very far from a matter of persuading people or attracting them in the sense that term is usually used. The fact is, and you say you care about facts: most White people ARE RACISTS ALREADY. So they DONT NEED TO BE PERSUADED. What they need is leadership. And typing -- mine, yours, or David Duke's -- or making videos is not leadership.
'The movement,' if it can do nothing else, at least ought to see itself for what it is today, at this moment. And it is...a bunch of online personages, mostly anonymous, enjoying political-flavored entertainment, or using politics as a way to sell books or in some other way bring in money. That's all. Perhaps something more can be made of it, but we haven't seen anyone able to do that yet. It would make sense to look at how other people in analogous situations spoke and behaved.
Simply awesome: He is a sort of racist political genius.
(I now quote him):
Agreed. The same message can be adapted to any audience, from a five-year-old, to a physics PhD.
Agreed. The old Jesuit strategy applies - meet the people where they are, and draw them back to the right path.
Agreed. But this is merely common sense.
This is where I don't agree. First, why do you have to scream? You don't. You can simply use those slurs. Without screaming. Like Mencken or Revilo Oliver did. Or any White man in the country in the first half of the last century. It is simply a measure of your class background that you associate slurs with screaming.
Second, you're misidentifying what actually bothers John/Jane Doe. It's not the use of slurs, it's that your position is known to be socially disreputable. She's worried that you will damage her social status. John Doe has no problem using ACCEPTABLE slurs - for whites, for Muslims. He is only "bothered" by slurs against officially exalted groups. And we know from surveys that his behavior is likely to be what the jew-left would call racist. To the extent he can act 'racist' privately and legally, John Doe, your average white guy, usually does. Certainly, more often than not, he moves to a whiter neighborhood, and he lives, works, marries, and breeds with people like himself.
People like John Doe are not where revolutionary change come from. And this is my main point. For reaching out, you need what Rockwell said - an offering for the semi-literate farmer as well as the French diplomat.
But we should be getting past that stage, to where that reaching out, in all formats, to all tastes, is running like an indoor heating system, as part of the infrastructure.
The need now, and the difficult problem, is to build a political change group. Such efforts as there are, are merely ordinary democratic conservatism, with no hope for making real change. And these are the ones reasonably described as obsessed with appearances, manners, propriety -- how we look to others.
My argument is we need revolutionary change, and that might as well start with our language. We build a new world, virtually, online, as a precursor to something in the real world. Of course it would be great if we could do both simultaneously, but I can't even persuade people to exclude those who favor jews over whites from our movement. They're just thoughtlessly lumped in.
WN must at all costs POLARIZE the country between jews and Whites. That is the #1 political task. Talking in the same terms everyone else does doesn't help that. What you don't realize is that precisely what John Doe needs to hear is "cupcakeer." He will never join our movement until it appears to be at least as likely to triumph as be crushed, but the mere use of a term like 'cupcakeer' at least shows him an entirely different conception of things than he's accustomed to. He will reject it? Sure. But he'll be aware of it. It's not like he's going to be brought around by your argument and sign up to join your side. That will only come when you're winning, and the only kind of people who can actually create a winning team out of a matrix of losers are those not scared off by such terms. So it those people we should be concerned about, the nucleus of the white change organ.
Anything short of that is simply conservatism. It's focused on me-tooing the Republicans, tv talk show heads, and bookselling writers. And the larger sites like Free Republic. Having a different "take" from the mainstream but using their terms and frames, and discussing their issues - that is conservatism, no matter what it calls itself. It always loses.
The goal must be to create a true alternative. A different world, with different values, filled with different people. The best way to create that world is to start with the terms we use, and what could more radically differentiate what Whites have to offer than taking the holiest of holies, the taboo of all taboos, and stomping it into the mud. Giving it the good ol' jew treatment - treating their scared cows the way they treat everything we respect. That's how we polarize, and show our strength, and attract the minority among our race with anything to offer. If we can't even do it verbally, how will we ever do it physically. Or maybe your unquestioned, unrealized assumption that if we're just polite enough, we'll attract enough people to vote our number into power and change things to our liking is correct. I don't think so.
WN should begin by deciding whether it simply a middle-class vote-getting option, in which case it should act like the other useless parties, or it should choose to be something radical, in which it must follow an entirely different strategy with attendant rules.
Right now, there is no movement, there is just haze.
Evidence? This is merely your opinion. You grant far too high an importance to what Jane or Joe Middle Class American thinks. What they think is not actually a thought, but twin fear and status tropisms. If you are on top, you can get them to do whatever you want. The terms you use have little to do with it. If you're the outgroup, publicly seen to be evil and bad, no argument you make will have effect. And even if you do persuade some people intellectually, so what? They're not going to do anything because there's too much danger. Change doesn't come from middle class people, and talk of attracting them or persuading them as though WN were just another party-political option is beside the point.
The concern is not to persuade people, it's to build up a power than can defeat the jews. Once you have that, you have the mass media and the enforcement mechanism and your disposal. And whatever those say today is what the Janes and Joes repeat tomorrow. It truly is that simple. Most people are not motivated by logical, intellectual conclusions, they are motivated by animal tropisms such as obtaining food, satisfying sexual desire, and even more than these, avoiding situations that produce fear. it is safe to be a democrat. It is safe to be a Republican. It is not safe to be White. That's how these people think, but it isn't thinking at all, it's in the marrow and heart, not in the brain. If being right mattered, we would have won a long time ago, because better men than we puzzled this all out long ago.
I don't agree. I believe what GLRockwell said, which is theopposite of what you're saying: trying to use facts and reasons with the mass of people is the eternal stumbling block of the right. You wouldn't call yourself conservative, or what you're doing a conservative strategy, but it is. And it can't work. Gaining a lot of page views is easy. But that is merely a measure of the quality of entertainment, one provides, not a measure of genuine willingness to come together to produce the change we need.
Are they turned off by Glenn Beck or Michael Savage screaming about black beasts and Muslim terrorists? No. So there must be some other factor at work. The one I mentioned above. It's WHO is being slurred, not the slurring or cursing itself, that bothers them, since they know the powers that be have made a certain set of slurs acceptable and another set taboo.
It's not a matter of hard or soft; that you think it is shows you don't grasp what's actually going on. You're thinking on one level, but not the right level.
Let's say you reach 1000 people. You persuade, say, 100 of them. What does that mean? If you're SF or some other group it means they will keep coming back for the wisdom and entertainment, and hopefully write you subsidy checks. Ok, that's fine.
What does it mean in terms of real political change?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
And over time, becoming addicted to the numbers game (numbers of readers and incoming checks), keeping and cultivating that market becomes the be-all. And so you begin to airstream debate, to shrink from what you might have said before you had an audience. Just to make sure you don't offend anybody, or drive them away. That would reduce your income. In any democratic system, the more you offend, the more votes you lose. So you learn to lie and camouflage and conceal. Most in WN see this as the way to go. I don't. I think we ought to offer what the democratic system does not.
Where's the White change in the just-another-party-appealing-for-votes approach?
Nowhere. It's just a version of what the Republican party or Free Republic does. A way to make money for the owner-operators, but do nothing to produce the change we need.
For that there must be agreement on who we are, and what we want. We don't have that yet. Using slurs and coinages is a better way to produce that type than any I know of.
Can our cause be reduced to a party-political position? Or is it a life-and-death matter concerning the context in which our kind will live?
If you answer yes to the former, than a focus on appearances an manners might, i say MIGHT, make sense. But only if you believe you can achieve your end goal as one of a number of players within the established System.
If you want something radically different, then using the agreed on set of taboos and cliches, the ones promulgated by the jew masters, accustoming us to them through inevitable and ceaseless repetition through all official, institutional and quasi-official outlets - is crazy.
Yeah, this is the old partyline dogma, and it's wrong. You're worried about being called names. So you're going to bring them over to racism without their realizing you're racist. That will never work. They're not as dumb as you think, and their opposition to you comes from different sources than you realize. Plenty of them don't have to be persuaded that racism is right, we know that from their behavior. Their opposition to you springs out of fear, physical and status, and they won't change until they have a reason to get past that fear, either dire circumstances, such as a social breakdown, or because you have something so wildly attractive they just have to have it. Which is not what the factualists have on tap. There is no word string you can devise, no truther video you can make, that will outweigh the impression made by the cupcakeers in the Denny's video. This stuff is exactly analogous to animals fighting over mating rights, with the masses being the female to be fucked by the winner. The female attitude, and I had one say this to me in exactly these words, and it caused an epiphany, is "if you were right, you'd be running things." This was a high-IQ female too, not even an average or dumb one, a very high-IQ female. It really is that simple. Authority is right because it's authority.
Why do you think people signed up with the Nazis? Because Hitler had good arguments?
Or because they believed, based on his proven record, and something they saw in his eyes, that he would lay down his last atom to back his breath with his body, and they knew that Germany needed some very, very serious change.
If you think about that, you can probably figure it out.
That is the difference. This stuff on the internet is silly word games. If we don't have a physical way to resist, in some form, and ultimately in all forms, the enemy, then we have nothing. This stuff is very far from a matter of persuading people or attracting them in the sense that term is usually used. The fact is, and you say you care about facts: most White people ARE RACISTS ALREADY. So they DONT NEED TO BE PERSUADED. What they need is leadership. And typing -- mine, yours, or David Duke's -- or making videos is not leadership.
'The movement,' if it can do nothing else, at least ought to see itself for what it is today, at this moment. And it is...a bunch of online personages, mostly anonymous, enjoying political-flavored entertainment, or using politics as a way to sell books or in some other way bring in money. That's all. Perhaps something more can be made of it, but we haven't seen anyone able to do that yet. It would make sense to look at how other people in analogous situations spoke and behaved.
