District of Corruption
Southern Nationalists continue to get the word out …
What do you mean by “defending racism”?
Jim Giles, please interview Thom Hartmann.
Afterthought – with due apologies to the poster that first said this (I can’t recall who this person was) – when do JEWS back away from “extremists” within their own circles? You are worried about the clueless, rapidly vanishing White Race becoming “uncomfortable”, by people like Lew, and myself? I suggest you watch some of today’s videos of the Lansing MI union thugs, brawling and screaming, over the GOP’s coup in the right to work legislation, of you want to see Nice White Tea Party Tards becoming “uncomfortable”. We are FIGHTING FOR OUR VERY EXISTENCE.
It’s not “comfortable”.
White people USED to be Berserkers. Vikings. Violent brutes, who knew how to FIGHT. Whites need to see and HEAR other Whites fight BACK. Not twiddle their thumbs, and mumble softly and politely, and offer to make tea sandwiches.
Good grief. Wait in a hidey-hole, dear. We’ll call you when the unplesantness is all over with….
That’s a great idea.
Thom Hartmann – http://www.thomhartmann.com/
Chuck Thompson – http://chuckthompson.com/
Colin Flaherty – http://whitegirlbleedalot.com/
“Go retrieve the death scene photos”
Yes like i said, casual child-like sadism.
“when do JEWS back away from “extremists” within their own circles?”
Jews aren’t White and have no sense of shame.
I think the keypoint is to know your local audience. I know mine and what works with them – morality and fairness, attacking double standards etc – but it will vary from audience to audience. I certainly don’t think everyone should play the same game as it needs to be varied to appeal to different types of people.
Lew, Denise, listen to the Texas Nationalist Movement radio show for the pitch-perfect tone that will resonate with everyday people.
I’m not trying to rub your noses in it, but if you started from where you are at with about 90+% of my family and coworkers, you would alienate them. I hope you know that. You have to stay within peoples comfort zone because the trajectory of events will of themselves make people uncomfortable, and they will look to options that promise comfort.
I’m not trying to be pure, I’m trying to win.
That is essentially the “mainstreamer” approach.
“- The Indians had no immunity to eurasian diseases. Even if white people (or asians) had solely come to trade on the beach and never settled they would still have wiped out millions of indians inland without ever knowing they did it.” – This is precisely what did happen. the die off happened before the first settlers arrived.
On Hartmann, yeah, who the hell talks about Atheism? Prodigal jews. That’s who. Two decades later they rediscover it.
Since when is lying leftist filth like Thom Hartmann a “normal” person? Hartman’s admirers include dangerous fanatics like Van Jones and Tom Hayden. Tom Hayden (Northerner from Michigan) helped create the SDS in the early 1960s, an organization which later spawned the Weather Underground.
The point isn’t to convince Thom Hartmann of anything, lol. The point is the impression you’re going to make the listeners of his show.
It could be the that the very best that can hoped for is to get some of them to think, hmm, well, that sure doesn’t fit the image of what I thought a real, live racist would be like. But I think that’s being a bit pessimistic. If you snoop around their realm a bit you find that what white ‘progressives’ (ie leftards) dislike most about the left is the intense anti-whitism. To me that is all the evidence you need that many of them would open to reorienting their worldview to a pro-white (or at least anti-anti-white) position. They just need to exposed to some of those viewpoints. This is the sense in which white leftards are ‘normal people.’
It seems reasonable to me that the leftard higher-ups are aware of this possibility and that it’s one reason they interview people like Heimbach, that is, it’s an effort to get him to say something ‘way out there’ and confirm to the leftard audience that their fears and concerns about ‘the racists’ are well-founded.
Hartmann is not normal. He is a lying, malicious prick who talked over Heimbach with superficial taking points rather than engage in fair debate.
Yes, that was very unkind of him. You’d almost think he was trying to win rather than be fair.
I couldn’t stomach the first ten minutes of that radio program http://www.blogtalkradio.com/texasnationalist/2012/12/11/tnm-this-week.mp3
Its too weak on the race question. Almost like a typical kwan with all the usual caveats , ie “I’m not racist” etc..
When will these people learn that every person is “racist”? If someone lacks this quality, they are either delusional or there is something fundamentally awry with their psychology?
I guess I should clarify… My understanding of “racist” is putting one’s race first and being more suspicious of outsiders, in general.
It is a smart move to focus on secession:
1.) If Texas seceded, it could secure the border.
2.) If Texas seceded, it could drive out non-citizen illegal aliens.
3.) If Texas seceded, it could gut the welfare state and drive out most non-Whites.
4.) If Texas seceded, there would be no Justice Department or federal courts to sustain BRA.
5.) If Texas seceded, BRA’s civil rights laws would be nullified.
6.) In order to secede, it might be necessary to downplay race to deter federal intervention, secure foreign recognition, and divide the opposition.
Lew, Denise: The goal isn’t to “win a debate” but to rally our people.
People rally to strength and courage. “Winning” the debate is important. Losing a debate demoralizes your side. When people see some guy having his ass handed to him, they flip the channel. If they saw Heimbach get up and throw a glass of water in this turds face or do as Denise just advised, it would get people’s attention.
What is going to happen when some Yankee-Judean with a loud voice screams to the Texas secession leaders that you ARE racists and the fact that you want secede proves you are racists because secession will hurt minorites and oppress the poor.
How are the “WAAAHHHH!!! We’re not racists” crowd going to respond?
I’m afraid I have to agree with Ulfric here. There’s no point in sitting across from some tool of BRA and trying to pretend you’re Buckley on Firing Line, talking in polite tones with John Kenneth Galbraith circa 1975. The time for debate is over. If that had been me on the show, my responses would have been short, aggressive, and to the point:
“Yes, Whites are being genocided. There are fewer of us every year. Next question.”
“I’m not here to talk about international bankers. I’m here to talk about White people.”
“We are oppressed because the federal government no longer acts in our interests.”
“With all due respect, I don’t care about your opinion. Your opinion is, frankly, meaningless to me. You hate white people, your own people, and therefor anything you have to say on the subject of White people is irrelevant.”
“Bullshit. There were no farms in Rhodesia before the white man came. The only civilization that has ever existed in Rhodesia or South Africa is white civilization.”
“Blacks were better off under slavery and so-called ‘apartheid’ here in America than they are now.”
“I wish blacks, Jews, and people of all races well. But integration and multiculturalism do not work. The only way we can all exist in peace and harmony together is as world of separate racial and ethnic nations, each looking out for its own interests.”
“I’m arguing for human nature. Ethnic and racial nationalism is the natural form of human social organization. Proposition empires like the USA and the USSR are artificial and can only be held together by force.”
“White people are a people. We have our own unique identity and interests, and the right to fight for these. I don’t have to justify anything to you.”
“I find your hostile and sarcastic tone insulting. Why do you hate white people so much?”
And always, always, hammer away at the Three Truths.
This polite debating-society nonsens has got to stop. This is no academic debate we are engaging in here. This is war, and the only way to win a war is to attack, attack, atttack. When in the public eye, don’t argue, don’t debate, don’t respond. State your position, hammer it home, and ignore any argument the Enemy might offer. The goal, as someone above points out, is not to beat some TV assclown in a debate. It is to win over the audience to our side. Letting the host ask questions and then attempting to respond is a loser’s game. Why be on the defensive? Why let the Enemy control the battlefield? Turn the tables on the Enemy and force him to dance to your tune!
If I’d been on that show. that host would have ended walking off the set in a sputtering rage. But I can’t be on that show, nor on any show. I am an old fart, and I have a wife and small children to protect. Until my kinder are grown, writing my little blog is all I can do. It is up to the young and unmarried among us to take the battle to the Enemy on the media front. I urge those of you young and unmarried folks among us to do so.
The point is which is more important: rallying the .035% of people who are WNs or establishing a baseline level of moral credibility for white political identity? A gay marriage advocate can throw a glass of water in an exceedingly hostile interviewer’s face and come away largely unscathed because gay marriage has achieved a sufficient degree of moral credibility in the minds of a large enough number of people.
And in any case, no one has advocated “losing debates” as a strategy. One of the main techniques of the hostile interviewer is to claim your position goes further than what you are willing to admit in public and to bait you into admitting it. Obviously they do this because it works. No WN would really be satisfied with merely restricting immigration. Interviewers know this and push your buttons to either get you to admit you intend to go further or to portary your position as making no sense unless you intend to go further. So the trick when being interviewed is to establish that the positin you have outlined is capable of standing on its own two feet, that it’s not necessary to go further. The best way I can think of to do accomplish this to make the interviewer appear either immoral or stupid (or both) for not grasping it.
Consider “White identity.” It should be simplicity itself to establish the moral propriety of White identity. By this point there should have been millions upon millions of whites willing to “come out of the closet” as white and to make the point to other whites that “it’s okay to be white and like it.” But in practice it hasn’t worked out that way because the people making the case for race are typically those who are not remotely satisfied with mere white identity. Their haste to make the case for the rest of their program has caused them to lose untold millions of non-racial whites right from the outset.
This is the answer to this question: (PDF) How We Will Win – Solar General solargeneral.com/library/how-we-will-win.pdf………..Martin Lindstedt is correct about Implosion of Babyon The Third and Final. How he explains to survive Tribulation is correct also…. Pastor Dewey Buddy Tucker of truthfromgod.com has the best flag symbol—THE NEWS FLAG…. Terrible Tommys comments at last part of HOW WE WILL WIN is correct also…..
A few observations:
“Humanity and white race do not exist, but ethnic groups and nations do exist. But ethnic groups and nations do not exist either, but (ad absurdum) only individual physical human beings really exist.”
Mosin- that’s why I continue to harp at the ‘non-humanity’ of the non-Whites. Jews have long had the ‘meta-narrative’ (to borrow from my other posts here on this forum) that THEY ALONE are ‘Human’ and the rest of hominidity is ‘cattle.’
USE THEIR OWN PROPAGANDA AGAINST THEM.
That is why, when I first read (CI’s are good for something, you see!) that ‘Adam’ in the Bible, means: “fair, ruddy, able to [visibly] blush,” I realized HERE was THE TOOL for deconstructing all of the illegitimate illegitimacies of the Left, Lesbian, and Likud faction.
I am Adamite. I am White. I am chosen.
Is it TRUE? WHO CARES? ‘
It’s true- to ME!’
I only now have realized that most of the commenters on this forum have never ‘gotten that fact’ from my writings, which I thought I have stated more than one place on this and other fora. In this light, “Humanity” is only ADAMITY. All else is (yes, I admit it) ‘depersonalizing’ the non-Elect. For only Europe is Adamity. Only Christianity is True. Only Whites are God’s Chosen People.’
You eliminate in one fell swoop, all claims of Jews, Jewishness, Israel, Islam, competing religions, other races’ grievance claims, indian burial grounds (Kennewick man), and confirm White racial consciousness (Solutrean Hypothesis, on down to ‘white privilege’ as LEGITIMATE). ALL OF IT.
Now, having clarified for the less intellectual what my writings are all about, I would like to say, here and now, that (amazing, but true) I agree with Robert Oculus’ most recent statement (I don’t believe it, Robby, boy!) about “The time for debate is over. If that had been me on the show, my responses would have been short, aggressive, and to the point: “Yes, Whites are being genocided. There are fewer of us every year. Next question.”
Thank God, he’s grown a pair. Will wonders never cease.
As to Thom Hartmann. He’s a Norski. Norwegians (indeed, all scandinavians) are the ‘Yankees of Europe.’
Let the dead bury the dead. Why can’t we just admit these schmucks’ RELIGION is their ‘multiculturalism,’ and move on?
“…As to Thom Hartmann. He’s a Norski. Norwegians (indeed, all scandinavians) are the ‘Yankees of Europe.’….”
Sadly. Although “Hartmann” comes from the German ‘brave man”
And— the 1848 Germans (many of whom were Statist joining Lincoln’s north army) wound up around Wisconsin-MN, etc.
There was another group in the 1920s—- which would be when Thom’s grandparents came. No idea why they showed up then (????)
—some presumably came as already-organized-and-trained activists for the “left.”
What do you think Heimbach said that hurt him with racially-skeptical but still reasonable lefties? I agree there are reasonable ones out there and that it’s important to appeal to them.
This idea is a major theme with you, the idea WNists are always saying things to drive away or alienate people who might be otherwise be sympathetic to select WNist ideas.
Lew, you’re right. It’s a figment of my imagination. It doesn’t happen.
In my case, it was less their ideas than interpersonal relations.
I have no objection in principle to a “White ethnostate.” I also agree that Jewish influence is a serious problem. The catch is that many of the people who subscribe to those ideas and the kind of people you would want to avoid in real life.
BTW, I have met Matthew Heimbach in real life, and he is someone you would enjoy hanging out with. We had a good time touring some sites in Montgomery and flagging the SPLC and MLK’s church.
I’m not disputing that it happens. Of course it happens. Sometimes it definitely WNists; other times it isn’t.
The other side has invested a lot of time and money caricaturing and lying about the reasonable WNists to create a false image of them and their ideas in the public mind. Examples would be Taylor and MacDonald.
You’re right that it only makes sense the other side perceives reasonable, sane-appearing people like Heimbach as a threat and that they’re going to try and make him appear more extreme and unreasonable than he is. Basically, the idea is to trap WNists into saying things to superficially match the anti-racist stereotype they’ve sunk years into constructing. They’ve been doing with Taylor for at least 25 years. Taylor isn’t what he appears to be, they say, but a skinhead white supremacist in a suit. The Taylors of the world, in reality, you just know are really want to gas Jews and blacks.
A person on the other page said Heimbach didn’t have good answers for Hartmann’s talking points and trick questions. You said it’s Heimbach’s fault because he bought into the “vanguardist” view. It seems a reasonable question. What specifically do you think he said that got him into trouble? Just curious. Not trying to be a wise guy.
Based on his own postings he has clearly bought into the vanguardist (ie extremist and despairist) view of the racial predicament and of racial relations. That view isn’t without its home truths, but the effect of buying into it unreservedly is that it leaves you unprepared to deal with normal people’s questions and concerns. Let this be a lesson to him (and to all who fancy publicly defending the cause).
Meant to say:
I’m not disputing that it happens. Of course it happens. Sometimes it definitely WNists fault; other times it isn’t.
You’re right that personality, inter-personal skills and the ability to get along with people matter a lot. Part of people working together be it in politics or any other area is working together. If a person has an alienating personality, no one is going to want to work with him even if they otherwise agree with him on substance. No one likes negative, unpleasant people. It would help if all WNists came across like Edwards, Heinbach and Duke.
Martin Lindstedt is the best in these matters about Bowell Movement and Tribulation and stupid dum Whiggers. Face it—Tribulation is in Process right now in begining stage. What Lindstedt says about how to survive is best advice—RURAL and Ready…
What is the vanguardist view anyway?
It has to do with the racial intenity it arouses in one, Lew. It has to do with the sorts of things one then focuses on. One begins to see a fallen world in every direction he look, and to interpret every significant event as having been purposely designed to bring about that fall. Everything becomes ‘anti-white’, everyone wants whites dead, everything about non-whites sucks (and sucks totally). In short, race is wrong, therefore everything is wrong.
Being a ‘vanguardist’ doesn’t require one to commit those fallacies of course. But I submit that many or even most of those who do commit such fallacies have been influenced by vanguardist views and commentaries.
It seems a reasonable question. What specifically do you think he said that got him into trouble? Just curious. Not trying to be a wise guy.
Nothing specifically. I just think he struggled much more than he should have. It should be a piece of cake to defend a baseline level of white identity and concern for white interests and to make a Thom Hartmann look like a blithering idiot. That Heimbach didn’t do that I put down to the sorts of things that his mind has been focusing on.
All the people that have followed the advice to “mainstream” are in no better condition as of right now in 2012 then the VNN crowd. After 20 years of mainstreaming!
They have no power and they have no voice in the media. The only time the media calls on them is to make them look like morons and to call them names. They are nobodies which only a very small % of people even know about. No one that I know in real life knows who KMAC or Jared Taylor is. Duke is the most well known but he is known as the KKK guy.
Face it, being a nice guy, getting along and smiling has gotten these men nowhere and where has it gotten anyone else?
I personally believe that this thing will play out regardless of how we act. The fact is that the South is about to lose all power at the federal level. This is why people will start listening to the Southern nationalists. When these “normal people” no longer have one of their “heroes” in the white house like George Bush and they will have no chance to have one, THAT is when people will listen to Southern nationalists or seccesionists. Not because they all smiled a lot and said all the right things and claimed that WAAAHHH im not a racist!!
Another thing, just because people do not believe that “mainstreaming” is an effective tool does not mean that automatically we think that crazed sociopath’s are good either. You know, it is not either/or. It is possible take a good middle ground position in life. Id like to see clean cut, shaven men who also take no shit from their enemies. There is no reason why our leaders and activists should sit there and get slapped around by these Yankee-Judean whores.
That Heimbach didn’t do that I put down to the sorts of things that his mind has been focusing on.
Actually it is about him worrying about how he is appearing that messes men like Heimbach up. Oh my GOD am I mainstream enouph, should I get more aggressive or not?! Oh Lord! Maybe a soccer mom out there might not like what I just said!
It is this bullshit pressure which makes men like Heimback flinch.
Heimbach only needed to point out the actual population projections we face in 2040 as a new minority within our own homelands and the actual reality that we are now only 8% of the world’s population. These two facts are all you need frankly. Just say, “I’m getting ready for the impending status of my kids as a despised minority within the borders of my own state.” No one can argue with this logical explanation.
This Blow fellow appears to understand that Ecru America might be bad for blacks and that whites are the only suckers who give blacks the benefit of the doubt. Do I detect a hint of intelligence in the black?
Actually it is about him worrying about how he is appearing that messes men like Heimbach up.
Well, yes, but that is because his brain is furiously trying to translate on the fly the thoughts it has been dwelling on into language the average listener is going to find palatable.
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>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
If you enjoy OD, we encourage you to make a donation to help sustain this website's growth.