Standing Firm

David Duke made inroads into Louisiana politics by staying within the experience of his audience.

San Francisco, CA

Greg Johnson has written a new article at “Counter Currents” about “Explicit White Nationalism.”  He divides “Explicit White Nationalists” into two groups: the “silents WNs,” who prefer to remain anonymous, and the “explicit WNs,” who are open about their beliefs.

Johnson’s aim is to reduce tension between the two groups on the internet by convincing them to adopt a “couple points of etiquette.” Under his proposal, the “explicit WNs” would refrain from ridiculing the “silent WNs” as cowards and outing their real world identities; the “silent WNs” would refrain from mocking the kooks and sociopaths who are “explicit WNs” and demoralizing the activists at meetings with all their reasons for choosing to stay anonymous.

According to Johnson, “a natural division of labor” suggests itself, which will allow “Explicit White Nationalists” to build a “winning team.” The “explicit WNs” should go public with their beliefs and stand firm for their principles. The “silent WNs” should “write checks” or “stuff cash into envelopes.”

This is based on the theory that for “a silent majority to become self conscious” some people “have to speak out.” This “courageous minority” has to “declare themselves” and “hold their ground long enough” for “the less courageous to gin up the courage to join them.”

By some mysterious process, the crowd will grow by adding “layer upon layer of ever more timid and tepid people” until it reaches a critical mass and becomes a mass movement. Then the opportunists will cast their lot with the resistance and the “new majority” will carry the day.

So write your checks today.

The Merits

Before criticizing this article, I should point out that it is not without merit. Some of this advice would be helpful if it were taken to heart:

1.) First, destructive criticism doesn’t serve any useful purpose. White Nationalists have more than enough reasons to be demoralized. If criticism should be entertained within the movement, it should always serve some constructive end.

2.) Second, browbeating the anonymous “silent WNs” is a waste of time, doesn’t work, and always backfires. They prioritize maintaining their middle class lifestyle over their ideological beliefs. Haranguing them about character will not compel them to endure social ostracism and employment discrimination.

Criticism

Several problems with Greg Johnson’s rosy scenario are readily apparent:

1.) If Johnson’s advice were taken to heart, the effective result would be less acrimony on White Nationalist websites, which less than 1% of Americans actually read.

It is the equivalent of giving an idle automobile an oil change. The car would run smoother, but it still wouldn’t go anywhere, as it lacks a transmission. It would remain stuck in the driveway, sitting there, with less bickering going on among its passengers.

How so?

Apply Johnson’s advice to the National Socialist Movement. In this case, the bargain struck between “Explicit White Nationalists” would result in the “silent WNs” refraining from criticizing the outlandish characters in the NSM and sending them money to feel better about themselves.

What would that accomplish?

It doesn’t matter how long the NSM “holds their ground” or “speaks out” about the Jews. The “less courageous” will never “gin up the courage to join them.” In fact, it is a mistake to assume that a lack of courage is even the problem, as that is not what is holding the “silent majority” back from joining these fools.

The “silent majority” truly despises the NSM. They dislike Neo-Nazis and Americans who worship Adolf Hitler. They dislike what the NSM represents and associate them with genocide. No amount of patiently waiting will ever result in an NSM victory in the United States.

The NSM is too far outside of the experience of ordinary people.

I fully recognize that White Nationalists are not synonymous with the National Socialist Movement. I’m only using them as an example to illustrate the larger point: you can’t ignore the negative public perception of White Nationalism.

If you ignore the problem, you will fail to communicate with your audience. If you fail to communicate, there won’t be any steady sedimentation of Whites converting to White Nationalism. Instead, there will likely be an erosion, as apathy and disillusionment saps the ranks of the converted.

Indeed, this is what we see today: White Nationalist organizations are smaller, less organized, and more dysfunctional than was the case just a decade ago.

You can stand firm convinced of your own righteousness, but you will be standing for long time, probably forever. That’s a wish, not a strategy.

2.) Without the means to connect with a mass constituency (and none are proposed here), no one is going to respond to the call of White Nationalist revolutionaries, recognize their legitimacy, or even be aware of their very existence.

3.) A radical with a moderate following is a leader in his community. A radical with a radical following has a debating society of anonymous people in cyberspace.

The job of the radical is to lead and organize moderates locally, not organize other radicals a thousand miles away. In every society, radicals are always a small minority of the population.

4.) Without the means to reverse our racial decline, no one has any reason to support Explicit White Nationalists. The vast majority of people who favor changing America’s immigration laws work through effective organizations like FAIR and NumbersUSA.

5.) Power comes from organization. White Nationalists are unwilling to organize. Their lack of organization comes from social ostracism and employment discrimination.

The sedimentation of “layer upon layer of ever more timid and tepid people” presumes that there will in fact be enough Explicit White Nationalists to create viable organizations. Reality suggests otherwise.

Four decades of this “layering” hasn’t produced any White Nationalist organization of any substantial size. It has produced plenty of hopelessly dysfunctional ones.

6.) This whole scenario privileges ideas and rhetorical purity over organization and activism. The inevitable result is threefold: a failure to communicate with our target audience, a failure to set realistic short term goals, and a failure to establish legitimacy in our communities.

The ultimate result has long been on display: no power, no influence, no progress, using the internet as an escape valve, retreating into fantasy worlds, vicious infighting within the movement, apathy, and a crushing sense of defeatism.

Proposal

Giving people money to stay in their comfort zone and continue to do what they are already doing is unlikely to work. You should only give to political causes when you get something of value in return, say, a book that you enjoy reading, or effective action that produces substantial change in the real world.

“Standing firm” is not a strategy.

It makes sense to “hold your ground” when you have things like legitimacy, a mass following, roots in a community, influence over the political process, and actual power. When the Republican minority in Congress “held their ground” on healthcare, they reaped a political windfall.

But White Nationalists have none of these.

In part, this can be laid at the doorstep of White Nationalist intellectuals, whose job it is to provide clarity and solutions to problems. Unfortunately, White Nationalist intellectuals haven’t done the best job at identifying the problems that are holding back the movement.

- An unwillingness to engage the mainstream.

- A failure to communicate.

- An absence of political realism.

- The idea of organizing radicals.

- Alienation from the target audience.

- A rhetorical radicalism untethered to effective action.

- A refusal to accept nothing less than instant, transformative change.

- Prioritizing rhetoric over organization and legitimacy.

- Creating unnecessary obstacles between activists and the target audience.

These are a few of the most important problems that come to mind.

Social autism results in a failure to communicate.

Mission

Right now, there are plenty of White Nationalists scratching their heads, wondering what can be done to reverse our racial decline, who are not satisfied with the existing methods and organizations, which don’t seem to be producing much in the way in change.

What should you do? Go solo.

My humble advice: first, you want to be taken seriously, and you want to get the attention of your target audience, which is your local community. Without legitimacy, no one is going to pay you any attention, or listen to what you have to say.

You won’t be the “advocate” of anyone. Much less a “White Advocate.”

So you should listen first. Research your district. Sketch out the consensus on social and economic issues that prevails in your community. Plant your flag at the furtherest rhetorical point to the right where you have a consensus and mainstream legitimacy.

Establish trust. Develop personal relationships with important leaders in your community. Get them to work together and support causes you care about. Determine the rhetorical goal post immediately to their right which you have a realistic chance of moving them to. Then select tactics appropriate to your resources and audience to nudge them in your direction.

Everyone has done this with a friend. Your friend trusts you. He looks to you for guidance. You know his political views and limits. If you want to influence your friend, he has to think you are on his side. You have a pretty good idea of how far you can get him to go.

So maybe you are having a few beers one night. You are watching the news in a bar. Barack Obama is on television defending some absurd policy. You take advantage of the opportunity to lead your friend into drawing the right conclusion from the experience.

In a collective setting, where dozens or hundreds of people are drawing the same conclusion, the effect is even more powerful. That is the job of the radical organizer. It is to gently lead people in a new direction by allowing them to draw their own conclusions from polarizing experiences.

First you must have your “passport” into the community. So work on acquiring that above all else. This means setting aside your rhetoric until you are on the inside.

It is just like chasing a woman.

You don’t go outside of her experience and “stand firm” in resolute defense of dorky, eccentric behavior. You catch her eye. You come across as sane and normal. After she develops an interest, you proceed from there. Maybe she will accept your quirks and values after becoming attached to you.

That’s not immoral. It is a sensible course of action. Only a fool plays cards by showing everyone his hand.

Conclusion

In many ways, White Nationalists are guilty of segmenting their world. They understand how to influence their own friends and family. They understand how to attract mates. These lessons from other spheres of life would be helpful when applied to their political beliefs.

While helpful, toning down the tension between “Explicit White Nationalists” on the internet is unlikely to accomplish much, even if that were possible. If White Nationalists want to win, they must do something beyond “standing firm” for principles which our society rejects.

They must create the means to move the masses in their direction, come up with a winning strategy, and select tactics appropriate to their audience and resources to accomplish their objective: changing our society.

How many more decades will it take for them to do that?

This entry was posted in Activism, White Advocacy, White Nationalism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

135 Responses to Standing Firm

  1. Revolutionaries, by definition, oppose the status quo. They seek to overturn the status quo and replace it with a new one. They are typically “powerless” initially, as that is just the nature of the beast.

    Greg Johnson and Alex Linder are not “revolutionaries.” They are merely loudmouth fantasists who use the internet as the cyberspace equivalent of a stall in a public restroom. It doesn’t matter how many swastikas they carve into their servers. They will never be taken seriously by anyone in America.

    Your argument is nothing more than a demand to operate within the status quo.

    A successful revolution must be preceded by a reformation in attitudes. I advocate working within the mainstream because there is no alternative to doing so.

    What is your alternative? Oh yeah. Another 100,000 anonymous comments in cyberspace. The previous 100,000 were posted to utterly no effect, but next time it will be different, and if not next time, at some vague distant point in the future.

    By your logic, there never would have been an American Revolution, as we would have simply supported those elements in Parliament that were relatively more favorable to us, and laughed at those silly revolutionaries. After all, Parliament was where the real power was…until it wasn’t.

    We have already seen that you know next to nothing about the American Revolution. In the case of the Revolution, Parliament attempted to radically change the popular existing form of government in the American colonies, and replace it with a transplanted political elite subservient to the Crown.

    There was no conversion of the American colonists to “the ideas” of the Enlightenment. They rebelled in the name of the British Constitution and the traditional rights and liberties of Englishmen. They rebelled in support of their own tradition, not a radically new one that was completely outside of their experience.

    I don’t know that anybody is arguing against doing that. I’m certainly not. My position is simply that it won’t be nearly sufficient to win us our own land.

    This is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Of course small steps forward are not sufficient to “win us our own land.” A cumulative series of small steps puts us on the road there – unlike posting anonymous radical comments on the internet to no effect.

    It is you who are attacking and lying about what other white nationalists choose to do, not them attacking you for supporting NumbersUSA. To anybody following along, that should be all that you need to know.

    To anybody following along, did not Trainspotter come over here and start this whole debate? It certainly looks to me like this thread was productive and cordial, without any acrimony, before Trainspotter made his appearance.

    You’ve admitted that the development of attractive, pro-white intellectual sites influenced you. Now you attack them viciously, and apparently want them shut down. That’s just nuts.

    Hardly.

    I was misled by Greg Johnson into believing that the White Nationalist movement was changing. It was only later after I plunged into that shark pool head first that I realized what a tragic mistake that had been.

    If he has insufficient adherents, who exactly is he going to organize? The obvious answer is that you need both adherents and talented people who can organize those adherents.

    Obviously, you have never read Alinsky. It was not Alinsky’s aim to organize radicals. What is the point of that? An organization of radicals is nothing more than a debating society.

    Instead, Alinsky organized moderates, people who were not adherents of his ideology, and manufactured polarizing situations to gradually lead them in a more radical direction. The whole idea of leadership is to “lead” people who are not as radical as you are.

    But again, Alinsky was operating in a completely different context than white nationalists are. As you are completely tone deaf to context, your organizational efforts are doomed to failure. Leftists like Alinsky get it, you don’t.

    Bullshit.

    Alinsky himself said his observations in Rules for Radicals are universally applicable to all revolutionary situations. No one who has read either Rules or Reveille is under any illusions that the “rhetorical radicals” that Alinsky relentlessly pillored were the Far Left equivalent of White Nationalist keyboard commandos.

    You don’t get Alinsky at all, not at all. His purpose was not to shut down Leftist intellectual work. You reveal a startling ignorance to claim otherwise.

    Alinsky’s purpose was to critique and attack the “rhetorical radicals” of the Left who “copped out” of the hard work of organizing and empowering people. In this case, White Nationalist intellectuals are clearly “copping out” by erecting unnecessary barriers between White America and White Nationalists that result in a failure of the latter to communicate.

    In fact, my approach is entirely compatible with Alinsky’s, at least as far as it goes (we face a different context than he did, so we will require a different approach).

    Alinsky’s approach was to organize moderates in the mainstream. Your approach is to abandon reality and convert people to “ideas” on the internet. There are no parallels that anyone who is familiar with Alinsky can see.

    I have repeatedly criticized the costume clowns who do nothing but hurt our cause, as they are pretty much the spiritual brothers of the wacky leftists that turn everybody off. Alinsky would no doubt approve of my position.

    You are the spiritual brother of the costume clowns. The only difference is your unwillingness to put on a Nazi uniform.

    When you get down to the essentials, there is no real difference between the two of you: an unwillingness to start where people are today, an unwillingness to engage the mainstream, an unwillingness to organize people who are not as radical as you are, all which result in a failure to communicate, and subsequent diversion into the fantasy world that is the internet.

    I don’t recall ever making such a claim, I suspect that is just another one of your lies. However, it is in fact true, of me and no doubt many, many others. You just don’t get it, do you?

    Unwilling to talk on the telephone. Ready to take a bullet and die for your ideals. Is anyone here credulous enough to believe that?

    You honestly think because people won’t organize with unstable losers like yourself, that is somehow a reflection of their character.

    Cowards like yourself are not about to organize under anyone. Albert Jackson tried to organize people. Where were you then?

    How many of the Germans who died valiently on the Russian front did anything during the revolutionary period? How many of those who died in Confederate ranks were involved in secession agitation?

    The most vocal secessionists publicly advocated their radical position for years. They stood up for their beliefs in the real world.

    The fact that people won’t get involved in senseless “organizing” that provides no payoff whatsoever is in no way a reflection upon their potential for martial valor. Most people aren’t going to sign up for pointless endeavors directed by losers and freaks.

    Maybe I haven’t realized the point of wasting another sixteen years on anonymous internet posting interacting with nutjobs and cowards who don’t have the courage of their convictions. Looking in the rearview mirror, I have seen more than a decade pass by with White Nationalists focused exclusively on that time wasting activity.

    Here we see even more irony – just as you accuse intellectuals of having their head in the clouds, it is you that offers unworkable solutions. You also claim that we need to reach people “where they are.”

    As it happens, the DREAM Act was killed in the Senate less than two weeks ago, and “comprehensive immigration reform” doesn’t have the votes to pass Congress for at least another two years. But I am the one that is offering “unworkable solutions,” unlike the “workable solution” of posting another 10 million anonymous comments on the internet which will inevitably bring about the ethnostate!

    Yet you obviously have no understanding of people, of where they are, of why they do what they do. Instead, you draw completely unjustified conclusions about people, conclusions that are solidly rebuffed by all of human history. You are that guy who makes irrational demands, misinterprets everything and everyone.

    You are invoking history now? Does the history of the last sixteen years of the White Nationalist movement reflect your position that “spreading ideas” in cyberspace leads to the accumulation of power?

    Go do these things. Have at it. I’m not opposed to it, just saying that it is not sufficient to get a white land.

    They are real steps forward. Unlike the no steps at all that you advocate.

    Alinsky understood context, and part of that context is that the ship was already moving in his direction. You, on the other hand, have no understanding of such things. You just don’t get it, you are completely tone deaf.

    Once again, Trainspotter reveals his complete and total ignorance of Saul Alinsky: Rules for Radicals was published in 1971. Alinsky died in 1972. The book was a reflection upon the previous forty years of experience as a community organizer.

    But again, you are tone deaf. Everything for you has got to be either/or. You can’t grasp that it can be a good thing if the Senate gets better on immigration, but at the same time the System is hostile to us (as are the Republicans in particular). If the Senate gets “better” on immigration, great. But the Republicans still support overwhelming non-white immigration, and a status quo that is killing us.

    The obvious solution is to oust the Republicans who are liberal on immigration. That’s what the Tea Party has been doing. Someone had to do it. The Laptop Luftwaffe wasn’t about to do anything substantial for White people.

    Become part of the System, the same anti-white system that has been eating our lunch all of these years. Look at how they are treating Russell in New York, a man who had the audacity to suggest that miscegenation might not be the greatest thing in the world. Yep, these people are our friends.

    Speaks Trainspotter who doesn’t even know Jim Russell.

    As a general rule, revolutionaries start out powerless. That’s why they become revolutionaries

    For every successful revolutionary, there are a hundred failed revolutionaries. The failures are more instructive.

    If they already had real power, they would simply be part of the status quo, instead of seeking to overturn it. You really don’t understand this?

    Wake me up when Glenn Miller is sworn in as the President of the Confederate States of America.

  2. Everyone: the filter is out of control. If your post doesn’t go through, let me know and I will search for it.

  3. LEW says:

    When it comes to spreading ideas on the Internet, we WN absolutely have to do something different than what we’ve done the last 10-15 years. Writing essays for people who already understand the problem and arguing with each other on discussion forums and in the comments section, while not a total failure, has clearly not had the impact we want either. 

    I think the emphasis going forward needs to be on creating discrete pieces of propaganda designed to spread through social media that can potentially go viral among a huge audience.

    That Duke girl’s so called Fuck List power point presentation, for example, got posted on the Internet and was running worldwide just a few days later. That power point has generated a huge amount of chatter, including commentary in the MSM. “Duke power point” is actually the top search suggestion on Google News at the moment, higher even than Duke basketball. Also, the youtube video “racist cat” that does such a good job mocking the notion of “racism,” and which was posted on OD last summer, now has over 1.6 million views. In my opinion, we need fewer analytical essays and comment wars or more content like that.   

  4. Trainspotter says:

    Hunter: “The men who died in the American Revolution were willing to face the British army and death itself for their cause. You are unwilling to talk on the telephone, meet someone at a bar, or face down a digital camera. Quit pretending to be a revolutionary.”

    Again, completely tone deaf. How many men who died in the American Revolution were involved in pre-war agitation? How many Confederates? How many Germans? Yet they fought and died when the time came. But again, according to your “new” philosophy, there would never have been an American Revolution. We would have simply supported the relatively more favorable elements in Parliament instead, that’s where the “real” power and influence was.

    Hunter: “As a matter of fact, I was not the host of the conference call, and the failure of the conference call to generate a higher response rate was hardly my fault. It was due entirely to the fact that White Nationalists are unwilling to stand up for their own beliefs … even in social situations as trivial as an anonymous conference call.”

    What would it have accomplished if they had participated in the call? Most people understand that we simply do not have the strength in numbers to become effective “organizers” at this point. They understand context, you ignore context. You have the exact opposite mentality of the effective organizer. You don’t ask yourself why people should want to do A, or what the payoff is. You just berate them for not doing it.

    Here is the reality of our current context: we are too thin on the ground to have a sense of our own strength. We aren’t feeling our oats, there just aren’t enough of us. Until that changes, most people won’t organize, because they’ll assume that nothing good can come of it. And, generally speaking, they’ll be right. We either get more adherents, or nothing is going to happen. It’s just that simple. And that is my focus: what can we do to get more adherents? So far, it appears that the internet is the best horse that we have in our stable. But if someone can go out and get the adherents some other way, I say great. Even then, it would be absolutely idiotic to not employ the internet, instead we’d just add another horse to the stable. But you have to attack the only horse we’ve currently got. Makes perfect sense.

    Hunter: “I’ve stood up for my beliefs. You are just a coward who stalks comment threads on the internet, talking hard about revolution, beating your chest, and egging on others to take actions you are unwilling to take yourself.”

    If I met you in person, you wouldn’t be calling me a coward. You are a big mouthed, blubbery punk. All hat, no cattle. After seeing your picture, it is obvious you couldn’t fight your way out of a paper bag. Worse than being a fat punk, you are a liar. I’ve egged on precisely nobody to do anything that I don’t do. I’ve encouraged support of the intellectual wing of the white nationalist movement. That is hardly egging people on or beating my chest, liar.

    Hunter: “If I were to give you a microphone, would you be willing to say any of this before a city council meeting in your town? We both know the answer.”

    Says the liar who has no grasp of context, and uses a pen name. In any event, saying this in front of city council would accomplish precisely nothing, except give them a target to beat up on. And you wonder why people won’t follow you? What you advocate is all cost, zero payoff.

    Hunter: “White Nationalists have had forty years to lay the groundwork for viable organizations in the real world. Of course the fundamental reason why that never happens is because people like Trainspotter are simply afraid to stand up for their own beliefs in public.”

    I stand up for my beliefs all the time, and have paid a price for it, you lying fat punk. I’ve lost money, social and career opportunities, something I guarantee that you haven’t lost because you’re too much of a dysfunctional pill popper to have had them in the first place. I talk about my views all the time in the real world, and have successfully educated many people in the process. But no, I’m not interested in telling my views to a largely black city council, which would accomplish zilch but make me easier to hurt. I’m not interested in “going public” right now, because there would be little or no payoff, and a lot of cost. I’ll pay the freight in the way that I choose, and will not be drawn out of my position by a lying punk.

    Hunter: “White Nationalists refuse to organize because of social ostracism and employment discrimination, not because of the individual organizer, whether it be Albert Jackson or myself.”

    Don’t put it off on Jackson. Take responsibility for your failure. The real issue is that there aren’t enough of us. When there are enough that we begin to sense our own strength, real organizers will emerge, not lying punks.

    Hunter: “Posting anonymous comments on the internet has less of an impact than just about any possible action that comes to mind.”

    How many new adherents has your “organizing” provided? By definition, the internet has accomplished far more than any of your organizing.

    Hunter: “Sucking people into destructive endeavors? Like what? Posting another 100,000 comments on White Nationalist blogs and forums? If that changes anything, I will physically eat this keyboard.”

    You don’t need to eat the keyboard, it doesn’t look like you’ve been missing too many meals. I’m glad that 100,000 comments have been posted to forums. Those comments educated a lot of people, which is more than can be said of your context ignorant, tone deaf “organizing.” Here is the thing Hunter. If you can go out and get better results, people will be happy and will adopt your methods. But you can’t do that. You can’t deliver. So you instead lie and smear. Big mouth, zero results.

  5. Chuck says:

    Jupiter said:
    “It is only a matter of time before Jared and Spencer come up against someone with a deep grasp of psychometric and econometric issues along with a deep grasp of the deep conceptual issues in biology”

    Like Harpending? Or Gottfredson? Or Kanazawa over at Psychology Today? Or Lahn? Or Jensen? Or Rindermann?
    http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/~harpend/syllabus.pdf

    Obviously, you don’t have a clue about the fields. The HH is a robust theory. I outlined it on my site — occidental ascent. Many Leftists/liberals consider it rather plausible: Flynn, Singer, Haidt.
    Go read through the comment section over at Nature Opinion forum: topic: ‘Untouchable’ Science. There’s wide expectation that behavioral and population genetics will show some differences in genetic dispositions to intelligence between ethnic groups. The question is: how much? How malleable?

    This is a separate issue from whether it should be made line of argumentation, given the popular ignorance.

  6. Trainspotter says:

    Hunter: “When you boil Trainspotter’s prescription down to its essentials, it amounts to nothing more than “spreading ideas” by posting anonymous comments on the internet, which is exactly how White Nationalists have spent the vast majority of their time for the past sixteen years to no effect.”

    It’s laughable that it didn’t have an effect. It’s educated large numbers of people. Without it, we probably wouldn’t exist at all.

    Hunter: “You are delusional. 1.) Working through FAIR and NumbersUSA and the political mainstream repeatedly stopped “comprehensive immigration reform” and moved the goal posts on immigration.”

    More clownishness. I’ve repeatedly said that I have no problem with people supporting those organizations. I’ve also said that it won’t win us a white homeland. Anybody reading understands this, but you pretend not to.

    Hunter: “2.) Posting tens of thousands of radical anonymous comments on the internet changed nothing at all.”

    Revolutionary ideas have to be developed and spread somewhere. The Left controls academia, the media, and all of the important cultural institutions. I wish we had more than the internet to work with, but it is insane to attack those who utilize it. Absolutely nuts.

    Hunter: “Correction: without power, we won’t get a White nation. What does it matter if thousands of disorganized, powerless people hold a bunch of radical ideas? It doesn’t matter at all to the people who possess power. Such a “resistance” doesn’t pose the slightest threat to their dominance.”

    Again, completely tone deaf to context and history. Revolutionary ideas have to start somewhere. This would be obvious to a reasonably sane person. Those ideas ultimately have to be transformed into power, but that can’t happen until they are spread much further than they are today. Normal people understand that we are too thin on the ground, and that being too thin on the ground has consequences. They live in the real world. You, being completely tone deaf and oblivious to context and reality, can’t understand this.

    Hunter: “Americans had been “free” for generations before the American Revolution. In fact, the American Revolution was fought in the name of the British Constitution, not in the name of the Enlightenment.”

    Dude, you just can’t argue with ignorance. If you can’t understand that the ideas of the Enlightenment had real world impacts, just as the socialist ideas of following centuries had real world impacts, and the leftist ideas of our own time are having real world impacts, then I can’t help you.

    Hunter: “Thomas Paine published Common Sense …. after Lexington and Bunker Hill. The notion that his “ideas” caused the Revolution is ridiculous. Even Common Sense didn’t have anything like the circulation that would have been necessary to spark the Revolution.”

    Again, Hunter thinks that ideas come neatly packaged in a particular book, and that’s all there is to it. He cannot understand the centuries of cultural accretion, the development of ideas and concepts, that made the American Republic possible. No, it was all in a particular pamphlet, and since that pamphlet wasn’t read until after Bunker Hill, then it didn’t matter. Hunter, honestly, you’re just not very bright. Some of your writing may make you appear intelligent, but you have no grasp of context, nuance or broad trends. You are unable to see connections or patterns, and that makes you, functionally at least, not very bright at all. As Gump would say, stupid is as stupid does.

    Hunter: “Notice that Trainspotter has no response to my point. The American Revolution was already in progress BEFORE the Continental Congress declared independence or created a constitutional republic. The Constitution itself was written years after the Treaty of Paris.”

    Um…I’ve responded to your point many times. What more to say? Anyone who can’t understand the philosophical undercurrents and trends that preceded the formation of the American Republic is simply not competent to comment on these matters. Again, to you, everything happens in a vacuum, a void. There is no foundation, no context, no accretion of ideas. I guess it’s magic.

    Hunter: “Ordinary Americans took matters into their own hands. They precipitated the American Revolution. They were the horse. Congress was the cart. These people were not enamored with the Enlightenment ideas that Trainspotter attributes to them.”

    Again, you are a literalist. You cannot grasp the broader cultural context in which these people lived, and why certain ideas made sense to them and others didn’t. No, to you, because the typical revolutionary soldier had not hung out in French salons, it must mean that ideas and context don’t matter. It is to laugh.

    Hunter: “We don’t need 10,000 more rhetorical radicals posting anonymous comments on the internet.”

    They’ve educated significant numbers of people. Not “enough,” but significant amounts. Your organizing has, on the other hand, accomplished nothing other than spectacular failure. So who has the better track record?

    Hunter: “That “tradition” was an organic response of English colonists to environmental conditions in the New World. Americans were “free” because their circumstances dictated they would be “freedom.” Any White settler could move to the frontier and have all the “freedom” he wanted.”

    If ideas don’t have real world impacts, then how is it that so many people hold leftist ideas today? Where did those ideas originate? How were they spread? Magic? It’s amazing that you live in a society that has been radically transformed by ideas, something we all see everyday, and your conclusion is …. ideas have no impact, and they never have. It’s purely coincidental that the American Republic was formed on the heels of the Enlightenment, and the communist/socialist tyrannies were formed after the development of leftist theory. All purely coincidental.

    Hunter: “No, it is a fact that John Locke’s Second Treatise was ignored in the American colonies all the way until the outbreak of the Revolution. It became popular in the context of a Revolution that was already in progress when it was used to justify a rebellion which the people had already started before reading any of his work.”

    Yes, they operated in a vacuum. Ideas don’t matter at all. It’s purely coincidental that some revolutions resulted in a Republic, and others in socialist states, and still others in theocracy. It’s all purely coincidence, with no context or foundation. Also, because the typical person hasn’t read The Feminist Mystique, that means that feminist ideas haven’t transformed our society. Makes perfect sense.

    Hunter: “The “form the government took” was the form of government that had existed in the colonies for generations before the American Revolution. The union of the colonies and independence were both practical responses to a crisis which less than twenty years earlier no one was advocating”

    Yes, ideas don’t matter. I think you’ve proven that conclusively. LOL!

  7. Again, completely tone deaf. How many men who died in the American Revolution were involved in pre-war agitation? How many Confederates? How many Germans?

    Quite a few. The secessionist position was openly advocated in the South. Secessionists stood up for their beliefs. Likewise, a decade of agitation in the American colonies preceded the American Revolution.

    Yet they fought and died when the time came.

    Whatever. You are not going to fight and die for anything. You won’t even pick up a microphone at a city council meeting and tell your neighbors what you think. Instead, you cruise the internet at night at Trainspotter14/88, which in your mind is a viable substitute for directly interacting with your peers in the real world.

    But again, according to your “new” philosophy, there would never have been an American Revolution. We would have simply supported the relatively more favorable elements in Parliament instead, that’s where the “real” power and influence was.

    False analogy. The American Revolution was not outside the experience of the colonists. The colonists had spent years fighting the French and Indians on their borders. They were fighting to defend their traditional way of life, not some imported ideological garbage from France, which is what you have been suggesting here.

    What would it have accomplished if they had participated in the call?

    A conference call is what Alinsky would have called a rigged fight. It is something that could have been easily done that would have got White Nationalists to take the first steps out of the shadows.

    Most people understand that we simply do not have the strength in numbers to become effective “organizers” at this point. They understand context, you ignore context.

    There is nothing stopping White Nationalists from organizing moderates around uncontroversial issues in the mainstream. You have never even read Alinsky. This shows in your poorly written comments.

    You have the exact opposite mentality of the effective organizer. You don’t ask yourself why people should want to do A, or what the payoff is. You just berate them for not doing it.

    Once again, I am not trying to organize people like you. I must have said that a thousand times now.

    You are not going to do anything effective in the real world to reverse our decline. Instead, you are trying to persuade people to waste years of their time on a fruitless activity that has a sixteen year track record of failure.

    Here is the reality of our current context: we are too thin on the ground to have a sense of our own strength. We aren’t feeling our oats, there just aren’t enough of us.

    Complete nonsense. There are hundreds of thousands of White Nationalists browsing these internet websites. This hasn’t translated into effective action because 1.) the internet is used as a masturbatory escape valve and 2.) most people are simply afraid to stand up for their beliefs and organize under the White Nationalist umbrella.

    Until that changes, most people won’t organize, because they’ll assume that nothing good can come of it.

    When there 100 divisions of the Laptop Luftwaffe instead of 50, then things will change. Sorry, I don’t think so.

    And, generally speaking, they’ll be right. We either get more adherents, or nothing is going to happen. It’s just that simple.

    We already have plenty of “adherents” like you who do nothing. So what? What would effectively be the difference if you weren’t an “adherent” of White Nationalism?

    And that is my focus: what can we do to get more adherents?

    I will keep pointing out: the last sixteen years have been wasted converting more of these “adherents” who have no viable outlet for their energies and most of whom eventually burn out without accomplishing anything.

    So far, it appears that the internet is the best horse that we have in our stable.

    White Nationalists were having more success before the internet when they were a credible force in Louisiana state politics.

    But if someone can go out and get the adherents some other way, I say great. Even then, it would be absolutely idiotic to not employ the internet, instead we’d just add another horse to the stable. But you have to attack the only horse we’ve currently got. Makes perfect sense.

    I’m not going to stand idly by and let another decade we can’t afford to lose be pissed away on time wasting activity.

    I stand up for my beliefs all the time, and have paid a price for it, you lying fat punk.

    Whatever, you are a gutless coward. You don’t have the integrity to stand up for your radical beliefs. I will take a bullet for White Nationalism … but won’t talk on the telephone. Don’t question my character!

    I’ve lost money, social and career opportunities, something I guarantee that you haven’t lost because you’re too much of a dysfunctional pill popper to have had them in the first place.

    Now we see what really matters: the comfortable middle class lifestyle, not the ideological beliefs. “Trainspotter14/88″ only logs on to blow off steam at certain points of the day.

    If I met you in person, you wouldn’t be calling me a coward. You are a big mouthed, blubbery punk. All hat, no cattle. After seeing your picture, it is obvious you couldn’t fight your way out of a paper bag. Worse than being a fat punk, you are a liar

    That was six months ago.

    I would be more than happy to call you a coward to your face. That’s exactly what you are: a gutless coward whose lack of integrity drives you to write endless apologies in the comments in favor of doing nothing but wasting time and entertaining yourself.

    I’ve egged on precisely nobody to do anything that I don’t do. I’ve encouraged support of the intellectual wing of the white nationalist movement. That is hardly egging people on or beating my chest, liar.

    Discourse is war!

    Says the liar who has no grasp of context, and uses a pen name. In any event, saying this in front of city council would accomplish precisely nothing, except give them a target to beat up on. And you wonder why people won’t follow you? What you advocate is all cost, zero payoff.

    Like I said, a physical coward with no integrity, who talks about violent revolution on the internet, but can’t even say what he thinks to his next door neighbor. A poseur.

    Don’t put it off on Jackson. Take responsibility for your failure. The real issue is that there aren’t enough of us. When there are enough that we begin to sense our own strength, real organizers will emerge, not lying punks.

    Go join Matt Parrott of the Hoosier Nation then. It’s not like he is going to have any more success convincing you to do anything. The root cause of your entire worldview is a lack of integrity, a character flaw, not the hang ups of any White Nationalist organizer. There is no organizer in America who could persuade you to show up at anything.

    How many new adherents has your “organizing” provided? By definition, the internet has accomplished far more than any of your organizing.

    Since when are the legions of rhetorical radicals the measuring stick of success and failure? Once again, you are an “adherent” of ideas, but that effectively changes nothing, as our circumstances would be no different if you were not an “adherent” of White Nationalist ideas. You aren’t willing to act on those ideas. So what use are you?

    You don’t need to eat the keyboard, it doesn’t look like you’ve been missing too many meals. I’m glad that 100,000 comments have been posted to forums. Those comments educated a lot of people, which is more than can be said of your context ignorant, tone deaf “organizing.”

    If the White Nationalist movement had hit the snooze button in 1994, it would have woken up in a stronger position in 2010. Those tens of millions of anonymous comments effectively accomplished nothing.

    Here is the thing Hunter. If you can go out and get better results, people will be happy and will adopt your methods. But you can’t do that. You can’t deliver. So you instead lie and smear. Big mouth, zero results.

    Like I said above, we are changing the composition of the Senate, electing stronger Governors, and defeating legislation that is harmful to our interests. What are you doing, Trainspotter14/88?

    Other than counseling people to waste years of their time on activity that accomplishes nothing? Why not tell them to watch paint dry instead?

  8. Mark says:

    Hunter:

    I’m sure our leaders are pissing themselves at the scary thought that Trainspotter is “spreading ideas” at Majority Rights with Soren Renner.

    They’re pissing themselves laughing.

    Hunter:

    Trainspotter means wasting the 2010s on anonymous internet posting on obscure White Nationalist websites

    We don’t need thousands of more bullshit anonymous talkers in cyberspace like yourself [Trainspotter]

    Trainspotter is the best refutation of his own argument

    Trainspotter is clearly utterly ignorant

    [Trainspotter] You are delusional

    All excellent points that should be obvious to anyone, well said.

    The absurdity of how a small group of sociopaths, homosexuals and autistic nerds could save Whites would make a good comedy show.

  9. It’s laughable that it didn’t have an effect. It’s educated large numbers of people. Without it, we probably wouldn’t exist at all.

    In the late 1990s and 2000s, White Nationalists didn’t even appear as a blip on the political radar screen in the United States, while the ranks of White Nationalists simultaneously grew more than 10x fold.

    The answer to this mystery can be found in the Leonard Zeskind book. People who read and post on White Nationalist internet websites like Trainspotter end up doing that and little else. They emerge from their radicalization less inclined to participate in the political process.

    More clownishness. I’ve repeatedly said that I have no problem with people supporting those organizations. I’ve also said that it won’t win us a white homeland. Anybody reading understands this, but you pretend not to.

    Working through FAIR and NumbersUSA substantially pushes us forward to our objective. If “comprehensive immigration reform” had passed Congress, the floodgates of legal immigration would have been thrown wide out.

    Revolutionary ideas have to be developed and spread somewhere. The Left controls academia, the media, and all of the important cultural institutions. I wish we had more than the internet to work with, but it is insane to attack those who utilize it. Absolutely nuts.

    There are already over a hundred thousand people who routinely visit White Nationalists. The spread of “revolutionary ideas” didn’t translate into power. There isn’t even a White Nationalist dog catcher in America.

    Again, completely tone deaf to context and history. Revolutionary ideas have to start somewhere. This would be obvious to a reasonably sane person

    To put this in perspective, the NSM is a relatively stable White Nationalist organization.

    Those ideas ultimately have to be transformed into power, but that can’t happen until they are spread much further than they are today. Normal people understand that we are too thin on the ground, and that being too thin on the ground has consequences. They live in the real world. You, being completely tone deaf and oblivious to context and reality, can’t understand this.

    In other words, the only reason the Laptop Luftwaffe isn’t storming the National Mall is because enough people haven’t been converted to their ideas. It has nothing to do with the fact that they don’t even so much as try to organize the people who already agree with their ideological beliefs.

    Dude, you just can’t argue with ignorance. If you can’t understand that the ideas of the Enlightenment had real world impacts, just as the socialist ideas of following centuries had real world impacts, and the leftist ideas of our own time are having real world impacts, then I can’t help you.

    The American Revolution was already in progress before Thomas Paine published Common Sense and Locke’s Second Treatise was republished in Boston. Thus, Enlightenment ideas cannot possibly have caused the Revolution.

    Um…I’ve responded to your point many times. What more to say? Anyone who can’t understand the philosophical undercurrents and trends that preceded the formation of the American Republic is simply not competent to comment on these matters. Again, to you, everything happens in a vacuum, a void. There is no foundation, no context, no accretion of ideas. I guess it’s magic.

    Trainspotter can only refer to vague generalities and unsubstantiated assertions because he actually knows very little about Colonial America and the American Revolution.

    Again, Hunter thinks that ideas come neatly packaged in a particular book, and that’s all there is to it. He cannot understand the centuries of cultural accretion, the development of ideas and concepts, that made the American Republic possible.

    John Locke had been completely ignored in the American colonies right up until the Boston Massacre. The only reason his ideas became popular is because they were cited as a convenient justification for a rebellion that was already in progress. The same is true of Thomas Paine.

    No, it was all in a particular pamphlet, and since that pamphlet wasn’t read until after Bunker Hill, then it didn’t matter. Hunter, honestly, you’re just not very bright.

    Once again, Trainspotter can’t refer to any specifics, but invokes vague unsubstantiated generalities about “what he thinks” caused the American Revolution.

    Some of your writing may make you appear intelligent, but you have no grasp of context, nuance or broad trends. You are unable to see connections or patterns, and that makes you, functionally at least, not very bright at all. As Gump would say, stupid is as stupid does.

    If these patterns and connections are so obvious, then why can’t you demonstrate the breadth of your knowledge about the subject? The truth is that you don’t know much about the subject at all. Ordinary people in the New England countryside started the Revolution without any great ideological design in mind.

    Again, you are a literalist. You cannot grasp the broader cultural context in which these people lived, and why certain ideas made sense to them and others didn’t. No, to you, because the typical revolutionary soldier had not hung out in French salons, it must mean that ideas and context don’t matter. It is to laugh.

    The “cultural context” in which the colonists lived was the reality that Britain was trying to reverse the traditional autonomy of the colonies, something that was bitterly resented and inspired ridiculous conspiracy theories (i.e., George III was a secret papist), and that the colonists rebelled to preserve their familiar way of life.

    They’ve educated significant numbers of people. Not “enough,” but significant amounts. Your organizing has, on the other hand, accomplished nothing other than spectacular failure. So who has the better track record?

    Trainspotter believes that convincing people to adopt his “ideas” translates into power. A naive assumption totally at odds with reality.

    If ideas don’t have real world impacts, then how is it that so many people hold leftist ideas today? Where did those ideas originate? How were they spread? Magic?

    That’s an effect of what we call power and manipulation of the status system.

    It’s amazing that you live in a society that has been radically transformed by ideas, something we all see everyday, and your conclusion is …. ideas have no impact, and they never have.

    The vast majority of people form their “ideas” through their own experiences. Alinsky understood this. That’s why he created People’s Organizations, not book clubs for nerds to read about Heidegger.

    It’s purely coincidental that the American Republic was formed on the heels of the Enlightenment, and the communist/socialist tyrannies were formed after the development of leftist theory. All purely coincidental.

    Gosh, what a moron. The Netherlands had been a republic for how long again? Massachusetts had been a republic for how long? Virginia had been experimenting with self government since the days of Pocahontas.

    Yes, they operated in a vacuum. Ideas don’t matter at all. It’s purely coincidental that some revolutions resulted in a Republic, and others in socialist states, and still others in theocracy. It’s all purely coincidence, with no context or foundation. Also, because the typical person hasn’t read The Feminist Mystique, that means that feminist ideas haven’t transformed our society. Makes perfect sense.

    Unable to respond to my substantial point, Trainspotter changes the subject.

    Yes, ideas don’t matter. I think you’ve proven that conclusively. LOL!

    Trainspotter is under the illusion that American colonists in Bumfuck, New Hampshire were reading Voltaire. A naive assumption which reflects his ignorance of the subject.

  10. Trainspotter says:

    Notus Wind: “I think you’re missing the point just a bit…The problem is that decades of propaganda have convinced him that such a political goal is immoral.”

    How am I missing the point? In fact, that is exactly, precisely the point that I was making. The Left has created a vision, a narrative, an aspiration that gives its adherents a sense of moral superiority and righteousness. The Right has not done this. It trots out its charts and statistics, but these do not impart moral superiority. These do not create a powerful vision, or the effect of “I have a dream…”

    In short, the Right has been disarmed in the realm of ideas. Often, a white conservative will preface his comments with “I know it sounds bad to say, but…” In other words, the truth is “bad.” It’s immoral. It’s unattractive.

    The Left has been so effective in this department that you get Beck/Palin fawning all over the socialist Martin Luther King, and ridiculous drivel about our black Founding Fathers. That is how triumphant the Left has been in the vision/idea department, and how impoverished the Right.

    The bottom line is that the Left creates powerful narratives, which lead to a powerful vision and moral superiority. The Right doesn’t do this (and clowns like Hunter say that we SHOULDN’T do this, and attacks those who try), and so it loses.

    In order to win, we need numbers. You can’t win if you are too thin on the ground, which we are at present. But the only way to get the real numbers that you need, and to marshal them into an effective force, is to imbue them with an appealing and powerful vision. Until we can deliver that, we can’t win. It’s just that simple. None of the lies, smears and obfuscations that Hunter is peddling will change that.

    You talk to normal whites in the real world, as do I. We’ve both found, essentially, the same thing. I think any non-kook who talks to normal whites will understand what we are talking about. The usual suspects, on the other hand, will have nothing of it.

  11. Trainspotter says:

    Mark: “The absurdity of how a small group of sociopaths, homosexuals and autistic nerds could save Whites would make a good comedy show.”

    The irony of this statement is beyond rich. That is precisely what you people ARE, dysfunctional weirdos that no quality person would want to associate with, and then you wonder why you can’t organize so much as a lemonade stand. Who even wants to be around you at all, much less take risks on your behalf? No normal white person, that’s for sure.

  12. They’re pissing themselves laughing.

    The absolute subject calls forth its antithesis: the subject without confines.

  13. I’m temporarily closing this thread, not because I intend to close this debate, which I am enjoying, but because it is distracting me from writing the next post.

    I will reopen this thread later tonight. In the meantime, write your comments out and save them in Word.

  14. The comments in this thread are back on.

    Sorry for the inconvenience. I was determined to write something today.

  15. NeoNietzsche says:

    Mark: “The absurdity of how a small group of sociopaths, homosexuals and autistic nerds could save Whites would make a good comedy show.”

    Trainspotter: The irony of this statement is beyond rich. That is precisely what you people ARE, dysfunctional weirdos that no quality person would want to associate with, and then you wonder why you can’t organize so much as a lemonade stand. Who even wants to be around you at all, much less take risks on your behalf? No normal white person, that’s for sure.

    [NN:] The irony of the latter statement is that a small group of “dysfunctional weirdos” would be more likely to save Whites than would a large group of “normal white persons”.

    “Normality,” in terms of the Western experience, is perversity, in Classical terms.

  16. Erik Nordman says:

    I earlier urged Hunter to let this thread keep going, since I learned a lot from both person’s (HW and TS) points of view. However, I would say that not much more can be said without repetition.

    I may be totally off here, but I think that the division of labor between Hunters mainstreamers and Trainspotters intellectuals could well complement eachother. Why fight?

  17. This whole debate erupted over the summer after I dared to criticize Francis Parker Yockey and Oswald Spengler who Greg Johnson had been promoting at Counter Currents.

    1.) Yockey was a virulently anti-American Neo-Nazi. It should be plain to anyone that adopting his “ideas” – Neo-Nazism, a pathological hatred of America, and a fawning uncritical embrace of Europe – is absolutely toxic to White Nationalists in the current political environment.

    2.) Oswald Spengler promoted the “idea” that “High Cultures” have a life cycle and that Western civilization has entered a terminal phase of decline. Hence, there is nothing anyone can do to change our situation, but sit on the sidelines awaiting the “Caesars” to come and overthrow democracy.

    Those were the only two intellectuals that I really criticized. I had every good reason to criticize them and their ideas. Taken seriously, Yockey and Spengler render White Nationalists unable to communicate with their contemporaries or paralyzed and unwilling to act in the real world.

    We can expand this critique.

    3.) I haven’t taken a hard look at Savitri Devi, but she is also popular in White Nationalist circles. It goes without saying that Savitri Devi is far outside the experience of White Americans. Even her supporters would grant that much.

    4.) Julius Evola is another favorite. I’m not all that familiar with Evola but I know enough about him to conclude that his influence has the effect of creating new barriers between White Nationalists and White America where none ought to exist.

    Read this Michael Bell essay:

    http://www.toqonline.com/2010/07/julius-evolas-concept-of-race-a-racism-of-three-degrees/

    It was the last one that I transcribed while I was working for TOQ. This essay appeared in the TOQ journal. I believe it was the Black Metal issue. It might have been the one before that.

    See especially this passage:

    Evola argues in many of his works, like Bal Ganghadar Tilak and Rene Guenon before him, that the Aryan peoples of the world descend from a race that once inhabited the Arctic. In “distant prehistory” this land was the seat of a super-civilization – “super” not for its material attainments, but for its connection to the gods – that has been remembered by various peoples as Hyperborea, Airyana-Vaego, Mount Meru, Tullan, Eden, and other labels; Evola uses the Hellenic rendition “Hyperborea” more than the rest, probably to remain consistent and avoid confusion among his readers. The Hyperboreans themselves, as he explains, were the original bearers of the Olympian racial spirit.

    Due to a horrific cataclysm, the primordial seat was destroyed, and the Hyperboreans were forced to migrate. A heavy concentration of refugees ended up at a now lost continent somewhere in the Atlantic, where they established a new civilization that corresponded to the “Atlantis” of Plato and the “Western land” of the Celts and other peoples. History repeated itself, and ultimately this seat was also destroyed, sending forth and Eastward-Westward wave of migrants. As Evola notes, this particular wave “[corresponded[ to Cro-Magnon man, who made his appearance toward the end of the glacial age in the Western part of Europe,”23 thus leading some historical evidence to his account. This “pure Aryan” stock would ultimately become the proto-Nordic race of Europe, which would then locally evolve into the multitude of Nordic stocks who traveled across the world and founded the grandest civilizations, from Incan Peru to Shintoist Japan.

    Evola spends less time tracing the genesis of nonwhite peoples, which he consistently refers to as “autochthonous,” “bestial,” and “Southern” races.” In his seminal work Revolt Against the Modern World, he says that the “proto-Mongoloid and Negroid races … probably represented the last residues of the inhabitants of a second prehistoric continent, now lost, which was located in the South, and which some designated as Lemuria.”24 In contrast to the superior Nordic-Olympians, these stocks were telluric worshippers of the Earth and its elemental demons. Semites and other mixed races, Evola asserts, are the products of miscegenation between Atlantean settlers and these Lemurian races. Civilizations such as those of the pre-Hellenes, Mohenjo-Daro, pre-dynastic Egyptians, and Phoenicians, among countless others, were founded by mixed peoples.

    Can you now see why I have been saying that “White Nationalist intellectuals” have been making it HARDER for White Nationalists to communicate with White Americans?

    How do you suppose ordinary White people would react if I were to tell them, say, that a Hyperborean civilization of Nordic Aryan supermen once existed at the North Pole, but a cataclysm forced them to colonize Atlantis, and eventually racial bastardization between Atlanteans and Lemurians produced the Jews.

    According to Trainspotter, “White Nationalist intellectuals” are absolutely sacrosanct and off limits to criticism. We should all be “spreading ideas” such as this. That’s the most important thing we can do. Organizing a power base in the real world is a waste of time.

    In his worldview, Soren Renner and Constantin von Hoffmeister are more important than, say, David Duke almost becoming Governor of Louisiana. I completely disagree with that perspective.

    The tension between “White Nationalist intellectuals” and the “mainstreaming” approach is obvious. The former deliberately marginalize themselves by entertaining esoteric ideas.

  18. NeoNietzsche says:

    According to Trainspotter, “White Nationalist intellectuals” are absolutely sacrosanct and off limits to criticism. We should all be “spreading ideas” such as this. That’s the most important thing we can do. Organizing a power base in the real world is a waste of time.

    In his worldview, Soren Renner and Constantin von Hoffmeister are more important than, say, David Duke almost becoming Governor of Louisiana. I completely disagree with that perspective.

    The tension between “White Nationalist intellectuals” and the “mainstreaming” approach is obvious. The former deliberately marginalize themselves by entertaining esoteric ideas.

    But elites govern in the context, and under the influence of what, to the masses, are marginal ideas.

    So, my sense of what remains of our infinitesimal prospects for survival is directed toward expanding the division between the main elements of the elite – alternatively: New-Order Globalist Judeo-Communism and Kosher-Con Judeo-Fascism (as forwarded by the presently loyal Janissary forces of the Greater Judean Oligarchy).

    This involves concentration on what I refer to as “ethicism” – as opposed to racism – wherein I make the point that the anticipated Talmudic Eschaton will bring the Temple down on all our heads, Jew and Gentile alike. The present course of the globe is toward world-wide anarchy – and the reduction, of whatever of humanity that survives in that state of nature, to the world depicted in the aftermath films of the present day.

    Thus, I invite the reader to survey the length and quality of the exchange between Trainspotter and Hunter, in order to come to the firm conclusion that, neither in terms of practical political activity nor in terms of intellectual appeal merely to the interest of White Survival, has anything been accomplished or is in prospect.

  19. Trainspotter says:

    Erik Nordman: “I may be totally off here, but I think that the division of labor between Hunters mainstreamers and Trainspotters intellectuals could well complement eachother. Why fight?”

    You’re not off at all. There is no necessary conflict between those who choose to develop and spread ideas, and those who choose more mainstream approaches. Hunter is about creating strife and disinformation. There is no real conflict.

    The Left understands this. They have their intellectual wing, an endeavor that has been so successful that huge numbers of white conservatives now accept premises that originated in the Frankfurt School. How did the idea get from the Jewish professor’s desk to the conservative’s head? It’s just like the recipe for rabbit stew: first, catch a rabbit. Obviously, the idea has to be created. Then it has to be spread by whatever means are available. Not by the means we wish we had available…but by what’s actually there. In our case, this largely means the internet. Hopefully we can do better than that over time.

    Of course, the Left also has radical groups, mainstream groups, and infiltrators of various kinds. Nothing wrong with this, but I would maintain that it is the proliferation of and acceptance of their memes, especially in the minds of white conservatives, that has proven the most effective. Triumph on the field of ideas, and your enemy is disarmed. We see this all around us.

    I’m interested in an antidote. Hunter is opposed to one. There are talented people who may be able to provide such an antidote, and it’s certainly worth a try. Such people, and they are few, would be utterly wasted if all they did was join some mainstream organization like NumbersUSA. They have the potential for far, far greater leverage.

    To suggest that the members of the Frankfurt School should have disbanded, stopped developing ideas, and just held up picket signs outside of a factory, is so absolutely ludicrous that it is hard to imagine someone suggesting it. Yes, Marx should have refused to write, and instead “organized.” In fact, as a result of his writing, Marx ended up spawning countless organizations. Ideas have leverage that no individual activist could ever hope to compete with, as the activist operates within a context that is shaped by ideas.

    It’s really quite simple: unless we can offer a narrative and vision that can supplant the Leftist ones, we aren’t getting our own land. Sure, we can support mainstream organizations and slow down the non-white tide a small amout, maybe push back the day of our destruction marginally, but that will be about it. As long as the anti-white memes dominate, even in the minds of conservative whites, we will lose.

  20. There is no necessary conflict between those who choose to develop and spread ideas, and those who choose more mainstream approaches. Hunter is about creating strife and disinformation. There is no real conflict.

    Trainspotter says there is “no necessary conflict” between those who choose to “develop and spread ideas” and “those who choose the more mainstream approaches.”

    Let’s get down to specifics:

    1.) There is a conflict between the “mainstream approach” and Francis Parker Yockey’s demonization of America, glorification of Europe, and full throated support of Neo-Nazism.

    2.) There is a conflict between the “mainstream approach” and Oswald Spengler’s idea that the “Western High Culture” has died and nothing can be done to reverse our decline.

    3.) There is a conflict between the “mainstream approach” and Julius Evola’s idea that Hyperborean Aryan supermen from the North Pole colonized Atlantis and created mongrel races after breeding with Lemurians.

    4.) There is a conflict between the “mainstream approach” and D.H. Lawrence who Greg Johnson is promoting at Counter Currents this morning.

    In his own words:

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/10/benjamin-franklin/

    The North American New Right is a “metapolitical” not a political movement. There are many ways to draw that distinction, but the most important is in terms of values.

    Politics, they say, is the art of the possible, and one thing that circumscribes the politically possible is the reigning conception of right and wrong. Political actors mobilize the public by appealing to their existing sense of morality.

    But what if people’s values are part of the problem? A White Republic is not politically possible because most people believe that such an idea is immoral: Racism is seen as the ultimate sin (for white people, at least), and taking our own side in ethnic conflicts is seen as depraved (again, just for white people).

    Therefore, we cannot achieve the White Republic until we change the fundamental values of a sufficient number of people. And changing people’s values is a metapolitical, not a political task. It is the work of intellectuals, not activists.

    The following hilarious but profound essay by D. H. Lawrence is offered as an example of metapolitical “transvaluation” — the transformation of people’s moral outlook. Benjamin Franklin is one of the people who defined a distinctly American set of values, the sorts of values to which politicians appeal to this day.

    Lawrence saw these values as profoundly destructive. He saw America as a rootless, raceless machine bent on the destruction of the white race and European civilization. Therefore, he offered a new table of values to help Americans reattach ourselves to the severed roots of our psychological, racial, and cultural vitality. These are some of the values that will pave the way to the White Republic.

    Here is Greg Johnson arguing in favor of attacking the most fundamental values of Americans and throwing the reigning conception of morality out the window. The conflict between the “mainstream approach” and “spreading ideas” in this case is once again obvious.

  21. Hunter is about creating strife and disinformation. There is no real conflict.

    There is a “real conflict” between the “mainstream approach” and Trainspotter’s psychopath hero Alex Linder who defines White Nationalism as extermination of the Jews.

  22. I’m interested in an antidote. Hunter is opposed to one.

    Trainspotter wants to spend the next sixteen years doing the exact same utterly fruitless activity that White Nationalists have been doing for the last sixteen years: posting anonymous comments on the internet.

    What is the effective result of this activity? A few more divisions of the Laptop Luftwaffe in anonymous comment threads on websites that no one reads. Thousands of more people diverted from productive real world activity into the cyberspace equivalent of wasting their time playing a Dungeons and Dragons video game.

  23. Trainspotter says:

    My time on this blog is coming to an end, as it impossible to argue with lie after lie, misrepresenation after misreprentation.

    I’ve made my position clear: unless we develop a vision that can supplant the ones that the Left provides, we will lose. It’s that simple. Context matters. That’s not the only thing we have to do, but it is a necessary thing.

    In response to this position, the dishonesty spews forth. It’s often been said that the Left lies and smears because it has to, because the truth is not on its side. That’s what is happening here.

    Let’s look at some of the more recent lies and misrepresentations. Keep in mind that this is just a tiny sampling.

    1. Hunter claims that I egg on others to do things that I won’t do. Anybody who reads my posts knows this not to be the case. If anything, I’ve argued against going public, because for most people and in our current context it will be all cost, and no payoff whatsoever in terms of getting a white land for ourselves. In fact, it is Hunter calling people cowards for not going public with white nationalism, while he himself writes under a pen name. These bizarre contradictions don’t seem to bother him in the slightest. He eggs people on (with zero success, but still) while pointing his fingers at those who do not. His claims are literally the opposite of the truth. In addition to being dishonest, his positions make no sense. He calls people yellow and cowardly for not going public, but demands that we infiltrate mainstream orgs. Well, once you’ve gone public, good luck with the infiltration. Look at what’s happening with Russell in New York right now. Hunter’s position is so ridiculous that it makes rational debate impossible.

    2. Hunter claims I’m a 14/88 internet tough guy. Again, anybody who has read my posts knows this is not the case. I support the development of white nationalism’s intellectual wing precisely to counter the internet warrior image. Again, Hunter’s claims are the opposite of the truth.

    3 He claims that I make extreme rhetorical statements that are damaging to white nationalism. Again, anybody who reads my posts knows that this is not true. I’m in favor of developing ideas that will be appealing to normal whites, and provide an antidote for the Leftist garbage that now fills so many heads. Once again, opposite of the truth. Anybody see a pattern?

    Just above, he claims “According to Trainspotter, “White Nationalist intellectuals” are absolutely sacrosanct and off limits to criticism.”

    That’s not true at all. I’m an advocate of intellectuals developing the ideas and memes that we need to triumph against our opponents. The idea that I endorse what any particular “white nationalist intellectual” says is beyond ludicrous. In fact, white nationalist intellectuals, and intellectuals of the Right in general, deserve criticism for their utter failure to develop ideas and memes that can compete with the Leftist ethos.

    He also goes on to say, “In his worldview, Soren Renner and Constantin von Hoffmeister are more important than, say, David Duke almost becoming Governor of Louisiana. I completely disagree with that perspective.”

    That’s not my perspective at all, just another misrepresentation. But of course, David Duke disagrees with Hunter, which is why he has spent so much time researching and publishing. Duke’s a pretty remarkable guy, and very talented in many ways – the philosophical and the practical. He does not behave at all like Hunter does, nor does he at all espouse Hunter’s positions. To compare the two is ludicrous, comparable to comparing a man with the gum on someon’s shoes.

    I will say that even someone as talented as Duke, and he’s a very, very rare bird, is limited in what he can do in the current context. His political activity in Louisiana was wonderful, but ultimately it has not stopped the anti-white tide at all. In fact, the rot has only accelerated since then. Anti-white ideas are far more widespread today than they were even at Duke’s political apex, which in the scheme of things wasn’t that long ago.

    The lies above are just a tiny sampling of what Hunter has been doing. He’s told far greater whoppers in the past, for example accusing me of advocating genocide when I had done no such thing. He literally makes this stuff up out of whole cloth.

    I’m done here, but you can guarantee that he will put a response in, and you can further guarantee that his points will be the literal opposite of the truth.

    As for personal matters which can’t be verified one way or another, I’ll just say this. Despite all of his chest thumping (while bizarrely accusing me of the same, which again, anybody who reads my posts knows isn’t how I operate), does anyone seriously believe that Hunter has been in so much as a single fight in his whole life, much less won? I mean seriously, if you were in a foxhole or a barfight, would you want Hunter watching your back? Really?

    I thought so. But I don’t like getting into the personal too much, because anybody can claim whatever they want. I’m more interested in the verifiable lies, and for Hunter, they are legion. So, unusual circumstances aside, I’m done here. I’ve come to the conclusion that Hunter is a distinct negative when it comes to white nationalism, and newbies/lurkers have been warned. Draw your own conclusions, but this guy is not good news.

  24. My time on this blog is coming to an end, as it impossible to argue with lie after lie, misrepresenation after misreprentation.

    1.) This is what Trainspotter said in July and August. It is now October.

    2.) I haven’t misrepresented Trainspotter’s position. He has mounted a hysterical defense of “White Nationalist intellectuals.” It is absolutely clear that the “ideas” which he is defending – a sample of which can be seen above – really are in conflict with the “mainstream approach.”

    I’ve made my position clear: unless we develop a vision that can supplant the ones that the Left provides, we will lose. It’s that simple. Context matters. That’s not the only thing we have to do, but it is a necessary thing.

    I’ve also made my position clear: you have already sold upwards of a hundred thousand people on that “vision” through anonymous internet posting. For sixteen years, White Nationalists have been doing this and little else.

    The effective result of this is that White Nationalists don’t control a single city council or county commission anywhere in America. Clearly, there is a problem here which you have failed to address. “Spreading ideas” HAS NOT translated into power for the White Nationalist movement.

    In response to this position, the dishonesty spews forth. It’s often been said that the Left lies and smears because it has to, because the truth is not on its side. That’s what is happening here.

    Why doesn’t Trainspotter defend the specific White Nationalist intellectuals and the specific ideas that I have criticized?

    The answer is obvious: because anyone can see there really is a conflict between those ideas and the ability to communicate with ordinary people in the real world.

    1. Hunter claims that I egg on others to do things that I won’t do. Anybody who reads my posts knows this not to be the case. If anything, I’ve argued against going public, because for most people and in our current context it will be all cost, and no payoff whatsoever in terms of getting a white land for ourselves.

    This is false.

    In July and August, Trainspotter argued in favor of White Nationalists going public in “the leaner years.” He repeatedly said that those who refused to go public should financially support those who do. So he can’t sit here and argue that he hasn’t urged actions upon others that he himself is unwilling to undertake.

    In fact, it is Hunter calling people cowards for not going public with white nationalism, while he himself writes under a pen name. These bizarre contradictions don’t seem to bother him in the slightest.

    This is false.

    I’m not arguing in favor of White Nationalists going public. Now, I used to argue in favor of this position, but I changed my mind after realizing that no force in the world could persuade people like Trainspotter to lift a finger in the real world to reverse our decline.

    Everything I have written since August is based on the premise that White Nationalists won’t organize. That’s why I have written so much about working within the mainstream to move the goal posts.

    He eggs people on (with zero success, but still) while pointing his fingers at those who do not. His claims are literally the opposite of the truth. In addition to being dishonest, his positions make no sense.

    Specifically, can you tell us what number of anonymous internet comments will be sufficient to create a White ethnostate? Over ten million hasn’t won us a single seat in any state legislature anywhere in America.

    He calls people yellow and cowardly for not going public, but demands that we infiltrate mainstream orgs.

    There is no risk involved to infiltrating mainstream organizations. There is nothing stopping you from doing this.

    Well, once you’ve gone public, good luck with the infiltration. Look at what’s happening with Russell in New York right now. Hunter’s position is so ridiculous that it makes rational debate impossible.

    Your position is ridiculous.

    You are in favor of creating huge unnecessary obstacles between White Nationalists and White America. What sense does that make? What is the use of “ideas” like the “Western High Culture” has died? What does that engender but apathy and a crushing sense of hopelessness in White Nationalists?

    2. Hunter claims I’m a 14/88 internet tough guy. Again, anybody who has read my posts knows this is not the case. I support the development of white nationalism’s intellectual wing precisely to counter the internet warrior image. Again, Hunter’s claims are the opposite of the truth.

    Well, let’s talk specifically about the “intellectual wing” of White Nationalism.

    This morning Greg Johnson had the bright idea that we should attack the fundamental values of White Americans and jettison the reigning conception of morality. What is that but a prescription for irrelevancy and marginalization on the fringes of society? That’s exactly what I mean when I say intellectuals are creating unnecessary barriers where none ought to exist.

    Read the comments of this thread:

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/09/theory-practice/

    Here is Michael O’Meara:

    Stronza,

    If you don’t hate America, then you don’t hate what has been done to European Americans.

    Either we reject the American Dream — rooted in egalitarianism and in all the other liberal modernist illusions of which the United States has been the foremost historical representative — or else we continue on our programmed path to destruction.

    Do you see a choice here?

    Here is Michael O’Meara again:

    I prefer to see ourselves as New World Europeans. America was a terrible European idea. Better to let it die.

    Next time, we will self-consciously proclaim the White Republic. We can call it the Northwest American Republic or, better, the Northwest European Republic or the NW Aryan Republic — something along those lines. But the “United States” for me will always be remembered as a repulsive Jewish enterprise.

    Do you see any disconnect here between “spreading ideas” and the “mainstream approach”? I see it clearly. How do you expect to talk to Americans by first telling them that their fundamental values must be thrown in the trash can and that America is a historical mistake that ought to be destroyed?

  25. LEW says:

    TS, Whose ideas and which ideas are you suggesting that we spread? I am open to being corrected if I am wrong, but my perception is that we don’t have any visible scholars, academics, or intellectuals on our side whose ideas are worth spreading other than KMD. Spreading Yockey’s ideas and the bizzare ideas of mystics like Evola will have no value in an American context.

  26. 3 He claims that I make extreme rhetorical statements that are damaging to white nationalism. Again, anybody who reads my posts knows that this is not true.

    Trainspotter has praised and defended Alex Linder who is easily the most extreme rhetorical radical with the most damaging influence in the White Nationalist movement today.

    I’m in favor of developing ideas that will be appealing to normal whites, and provide an antidote for the Leftist garbage that now fills so many heads. Once again, opposite of the truth. Anybody see a pattern?

    So normal Whites are going to agree with Michael O’Meara that America ought to be destroyed? They are going to agree with Greg Johnson that their fundamental values ought to be thrown in the trash can?

    Just above, he claims “According to Trainspotter, “White Nationalist intellectuals” are absolutely sacrosanct and off limits to criticism.”

    Trainspotter first went nuts when I criticized Francis Parker Yockey and Oswald Spengler. Those were the two specific intellectuals that I criticized.

    That’s not true at all. I’m an advocate of intellectuals developing the ideas and memes that we need to triumph against our opponents. The idea that I endorse what any particular “white nationalist intellectual” says is beyond ludicrous. In fact, white nationalist intellectuals, and intellectuals of the Right in general, deserve criticism for their utter failure to develop ideas and memes that can compete with the Leftist ethos.

    Now you are furiously backpeddling. If the intellectuals of the Right have been such an utter failure, why have you criticized me for pointing out that their “ideas” are creating barriers between White America and White Nationalists?

    That’s not my perspective at all, just another misrepresentation. But of course, David Duke disagrees with Hunter, which is why he has spent so much time researching and publishing.

    David Duke would agree with me that White Nationalists ought to stay within the experience of their audience. If it hadn’t been for his youthful involvement with the Klan and Neo-Nazis, Duke himself has said he would have been elected Governor of Louisiana.

    Duke’s a pretty remarkable guy, and very talented in many ways – the philosophical and the practical. He does not behave at all like Hunter does, nor does he at all espouse Hunter’s positions. To compare the two is ludicrous, comparable to comparing a man with the gum on someon’s shoes.

    Duke does not believe at all that “spreading ideas” on the internet is sufficient to bring about a White ethnostate.

    I will say that even someone as talented as Duke, and he’s a very, very rare bird, is limited in what he can do in the current context. His political activity in Louisiana was wonderful, but ultimately it has not stopped the anti-white tide at all. In fact, the rot has only accelerated since then.

    Why is that?

    There wasn’t any follow up to Duke’s successful insurgent campaigns in Louisiana. Duke demonstrated that White Nationalists could win in the Deep South. All they had to do was stay within the experience of their audience. With better candidates with Duke’s baggage, we could be winning in states like Alabama.

    Instead, the internet came along in 1994 and White Nationalists spent the next sixteen years on anonymous internet posting instead of political organizing, with the result being that we are more marginalized and powerless than we were twenty years ago.

    Anti-white ideas are far more widespread today than they were even at Duke’s political apex, which in the scheme of things wasn’t that long ago.

    Of course they are. Why wouldn’t they be? There is no corresponding power coming from the Far Right that could pull the mainstream in our direction. There never will be either so long as people are content to blow off steam with fantasy worlds on the internet.

    The lies above are just a tiny sampling of what Hunter has been doing. He’s told far greater whoppers in the past, for example accusing me of advocating genocide when I had done no such thing. He literally makes this stuff up out of whole cloth.

    Trainspotter himself claims to be a fan of Alex Linder. He admires someone who advocates genocide.

    I’m done here, but you can guarantee that he will put a response in, and you can further guarantee that his points will be the literal opposite of the truth.

    The truth is that you are defending “ideas” that when adopted only make White Nationalists sound like they are from Neptune.

    As for personal matters which can’t be verified one way or another, I’ll just say this. Despite all of his chest thumping (while bizarrely accusing me of the same, which again, anybody who reads my posts knows isn’t how I operate), does anyone seriously believe that Hunter has been in so much as a single fight in his whole life, much less won? I mean seriously, if you were in a foxhole or a barfight, would you want Hunter watching your back? Really?

    Let’s see.

    I work out at the gym six days a week with machines and free weights for over an hour. I run at least an hour every day. I’ve been doing this since January 22.

    I’m not bullshitting you either. Gregory Hood, H. Rock White, Mike Capatano, and William Rome can all confirm this. The last three used to go to the gym with me.

    At the beginning of June, when I confronted Jeffrey Imm in DC, I was thirty pounds overweight (187), but that is no longer the case at all today, four months later in October. By January, I will be ripped, with hardly a trace of body fat left.

    I already have massive arms and shoulders from strength training over the past six months. I took up boxing in September. If I wanted to hit someone now, I could knock their teeth out easily.

    You could say that my physical fitness routine has influenced my political views. Everything that I have been saying: incremental progress, realistic short term goals, discipline, will power and character, changing your behavior, acting instead of thinking, the sterility of ideas untethered to action … comes in large part from my experience with cardio and strength training.

    It’s not enough to know how to get in shape. Almost everyone who is out of shape knows the reasons why. Everyone who is overweight has a “vision” of what they would like to look like.

    The ideas are easy to grasp. The hard part is changing your behavior, building your character, and setting realistic goals that allow you to accomplish your objective.

    Maybe I should write a post this week comparing the principles of body building to the White Nationalist movement? I’ve thought a lot about the subject but have never brought up the matter on this website.

  27. Trainspotter says:

    Hunter: “In July and August, Trainspotter argued in favor of White Nationalists going public in “the leaner years.” He repeatedly said that those who refused to go public should financially support those who do. So he can’t sit here and argue that he hasn’t urged actions upon others that he himself is unwilling to undertake.”

    I’ll take the time to respond to one last lie, as this one is an absolute whopper, and about a subject that is of particular importance to me. I won’t be checking this thread for future lies, so just assume that I reject Hunter’s statements in their entirety.

    My position was, and is, that those who don’t go public should be willing to financially support those who do. I did not encourage people to go public, and I certainly didn’t egg on anybody to do so. In fact, I discouraged people from going public, because our ability to support those who do is limited, and few have the talent to reasonably expect much financial support. Some are going to do it anyway, and obviously I hope it turns out to be worth it for them, but I have certainly not encouraged, much less egged on, anybody to make such a decision. Instead, I’ve encouarged the opposite. Don’t go public in the current context unless there is a damned compelling reason to do so. To claim otherwise, as Hunter has done, is a bald faced lie, made up out of whole cloth.

    Duke and a few others can pull it off, but most can’t. Most people who go public are going to make no meaningful impact, and are simply going to be left twisting in the wind. They will also limit their future options, up to and including gaining influence in various non-WN orgs or entities. Again, my position was and is the exact opposite of what Hunter claims. He’s just engaging in pathological lying.

    I don’t have the time or inclination to respond to lie after lie after lie. After this post, OD is off of my radar. I will not be checking this thread again, but I’m confident that the lies will pile up. Hunter has convinced me that his dishonesty goes way beyond the norm even for scumbags, far worse than what I have seen in even the most disgusting of Leftists.

    @Lew
    I hear you, which is why I’m advocating the development of better ideas and memes, not merely the recirculation of existing ones. Obviously, what has been created up to this point hasn’t been able to get us where we need to go.

  28. My position was, and is, that those who don’t go public should be willing to financially support those who do. I did not encourage people to go public, and I certainly didn’t egg on anybody to do so. In fact, I discouraged people from going public, because our ability to support those who do is limited, and few have the talent to reasonably expect much financial support. Some are going to do it anyway, and obviously I hope it turns out to be worth it for them, but I have certainly not encouraged, much less egged on, anybody to make such a decision. Instead, I’ve encouarged the opposite. Don’t go public in the current context unless there is a damned compelling reason to do so. To claim otherwise, as Hunter has done, is a bald faced lie, made up out of whole cloth.

    Trainspotter is backpeddling.

    After saying above that he never encouraged anyone to go public, he has suddenly changed his tune. Now he remembers that he said in the comments in July and August that those who go public in “the leaner years” do vital work and lay the indispensable foundation for a future mass movement. He said at the time that those who go public (like the NSDAP in the 1920s) should be financially supported by those who chose not to.

    His new position is that no one should go public. Instead, everyone should be a keyboard commando like himself, as the risks of White Advocacy (facing down a digital camera) outweigh the potential benefits. Why go public when you can “spread ideas” safely and anonymously on the internet?

    It never occurs to Trainspotter that the people who are exposed to those ideas – people like himself – don’t alter their behavior in any significant or effective way that would allow the White Nationalist movement to build power.

    Duke and a few others can pull it off, but most can’t. Most people who go public are going to make no meaningful impact, and are simply going to be left twisting in the wind. They will also limit their future options, up to and including gaining influence in various non-WN orgs or entities. Again, my position was and is the exact opposite of what Hunter claims. He’s just engaging in pathological lying.

    Trainspotter seems to believe in a safe, anonymous revolution based in cyberspace that can be pulled off without anyone have to take any risks. It is nothing but a fantasy.

    Does anyone seriously believe that the U.S. federal government would surrender, say, the Pacific Northwest to Trainspotter’s brigades of anonymous keyboard commandos?

    I hear you, which is why I’m advocating the development of better ideas and memes, not merely the recirculation of existing ones. Obviously, what has been created up to this point hasn’t been able to get us where we need to go.

    Trainspotter changes his tune once again.

    After furiously attacking me for criticizing “White Nationalist intellectuals,” people like Francis Parker Yockey and Oswald Spengler, Trainspotter now doesn’t want to defend the specific intellectuals and specific ideas that I have been criticizing.

    I don’t have the time or inclination to respond to lie after lie after lie. After this post, OD is off of my radar. I will not be checking this thread again, but I’m confident that the lies will pile up.

    This must be the sixth or seventh time Trainspotter has said this now.

    Hunter has convinced me that his dishonesty goes way beyond the norm even for scumbags, far worse than what I have seen in even the most disgusting of Leftists.

    Incredible.

    THIS WHOLE DEBATE started because I had the audacity to criticize White Nationalist intellectuals. Now that we are at the end of the debate, Trainspotter does a complete 180 and attacks the same White Nationalist intellectuals, saying that those intellectuals “deserve criticism for their utter failure to develop ideas and memes that can compete with the Leftist ethos.”

    But I am the “dishonest scumbag,” not Trainspotter, who has dishonestly been defending people for months now, misleading others, only in the end to totally and completely reverse his own position!

  29. NeoNietzsche says:

    Thus, I invite the reader to survey the length and quality of the exchange between Trainspotter and Hunter, in order to come to the firm conclusion that, neither in terms of practical political activity nor in terms of intellectual appeal merely to the interest of White Survival, has anything been accomplished or is in prospect.

    Practical Idea:

    TAKE BACK OUR MONEY (T-BOM)

    http://master-morality.blogspot.com/2009/02/take-back-our-money-t-bom_01.html

    BUY BACK OUR COUNTRY

  30. LEW,

    You hit the bullseye. Whose ideas is Trainspotter defending? Who are the White Nationalist intellectuals that are so invaluable?

    I haven’t criticized Jared Taylor or Kevin MacDonald anywhere. Their work is obviously valuable. Neither Taylor or MacDonald radically go outside the experience of their audience.

    Over the summer, I criticized Oswald Spengler and Francis Parker Yockey, but not really anyone else. To a lesser extent, I criticized Greg Johnson and Alex Linder.

    So who exactly did I criticize that led to Trainspotter going nuts?

  31. Celestial Time says:

    Trainspotter wants to spend the next sixteen years doing the exact same utterly fruitless activity that White Nationalists have been doing for the last sixteen years: posting anonymous comments on the internet.

    But you want to spend the next xx years latching on to non-racial party politics when it’s not only been fruitless for White people as far as race goes, it’s been downright hostile. Neither Republican nor Democrat, Right nor Left, Blue nor Red, innies nor outies, etc. can really claim to have played less of a role in shackling White people to their current dismal existence. You, like so many other doe-eyed prophets before you, believe that you have what it takes to fix a game where you don’t own either of the teams, don’t have a platform to express your true intentions, don’t have the capital to buy sympathy and votes if that’s what it takes, and don’t even have the magnanimous personality needed to keep 50% of the White populace from rebelling against the other 50% on all the the non-racial issues. You’re essentially relegating yourself to an existence much like a third-string quarterback. You’re just thrilled to be part of a team, even when you don’t make a bit of difference.

    For all the talk of how ineffective the radicalized mouthpieces of the internet have been, they have put into office the exact same amount of pro-White advocates your not-so-new-approach has — Zero! Funny thing, though, you’re the one putting an extraordinary amount of stock into “mainstreaming” and electing Republican officials, not them. So who’s the bigger failure?

    Just so it’s perfectly clear, I have railed against the vitriolic and insane elements of the American pro-White scene for at least ten years now. I have also suggested that White Nationalism take more of a mainstream approach in it’s rhetoric and appearance. I’ve suggested that moderate pro-White people become much more vocal in an attempt to draw distinctive lines between the very virulent and the very moderate. These types of suggestion were made well before me, and they’ve been made countless times since, resulting in the same futile efforts of persuasion. So suggestions about mainstreaming and the ineffectiveness of certain elements is nothing new.

    There is no hope for autonomy without many adherents
    There are no adherents without organization
    There is no organization without a strong base
    There is no strong base without leadership
    There is no leadership without brave leader(s) who have practical, NEW ideas
    And a brave leader with practical ideas is not some guy huffing and puffing on the Internet about credulous visions of success

  32. Captainchaos says:

    I’m not sure what your objection to Wallace is, Trainspotter. Even were he now to amend his message to your preferred content you clearly do not think him a worthy vessel for its deliverance. So what are you complaining about, really?

  33. Just imagine what would happen if everyone who now participates in the mainstream followed Trainspotter’s sage advice. Let’s suppose FAIR and NumbersUSA closed down tomorrow and decided to refocus their efforts on anonymous internet posting on obscure internet forums.

    What do you suppose the likely result would be?

  34. Captainchaos says:

    Look at it this way, Train: There is a dish likely to be to the taste of whatever it is you fancy on the buffet table that is internet racism, er, racialism. The only constant of Occidental Dissent, besides its Dixie nostalgia, has been its inconstancy. I’m sure it will once again loop around on itself to deliver a message more to your liking – FAIR and NumbersUSA could never be bothered with such audience pleasing novelty.

  35. 1) We have a duty to criticize and defeat bad ideas.

    2) We have a duty to point out unethical behavior of comrades.

    To not do either of those for the point of “placing nice with others” will result in bad ideas flourishing and unethical behavior go unpunished. Neither is a desirable outcome.

    I do however believe the silent nationalists have a moral obligation to financially help out those that are public.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>