Vanguardist retort

“I’m openly intolerant. If someone doesn’t follow my line, he’s the enemy. Not like it’s a hard standard to meet: openly White and openly anti-jew. That’s all. Within that framework, we can do business. Outside it, we’re enemies. Simple, clear, effective.” (Alex Linder’s dual litmus test)

The following is Linder’s deconstruction at VNN Forum of what Leon Haller said at Majority Rights. It exemplifies my view about why the mainstreamer side of white nationalism is deluded. No ellipsis added between unquoted sentences:





Leon Haller: The primary strategic question is always, therefore, who is your base?

Alex Linder: Wrong, quite wrong. First you must answer a pre-strategic question: who are “we”? Yeah. That basic. Once that is answered, and you know what you mean by “we” and “our” (the VNN answer is we are Whites, and jews are our enemy), then the strategic question becomes: how do we gain sovereignty from a System in which jews control the money, the mass media, and the military?

Haller: The base of any movement to save the white race—the minimum of which in my view consists in stopping nonwhite immigration everywhere, followed by repatriating nonwhites from Europe, and, in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, 1) ending white judicial and legislative oppression, and 2) reestablishing white cultural hegemony—is going to be found among conservatives. Who else could it be? Occasional NS [National Socialist] Euros think that some labourite working class somewhere will constitute it, but I think that view is decades out of date, if it was ever valid.

Linder: Wrong on two levels.

Our cause isn’t truly a political position but a species-representation: We are a biological party, not a political party. White society by default, on a far deeper level than mere petty politics, is what white nationalism represents. We aren’t representing or appealing, we are the thing itself—the thing itself defending itself, in the biosphere. We don’t need to appeal to anybody, we not only represent them already, we are them. We’re just open about it. That is the only real difference between us and the vast majority of fellow whites: we are open about it.

The reason people don’t join their formal political behavior with their informal unspoken feelings and behavior is fear. The jews have divorced our external from our internal by means of fear. It is fear, above all else, that we must overcome, in ourselves and in our people, if we are to regain sovereignty.

Only bravery gets out fear. We don’t need to appeal to people, Leon. We need to lead them. Lead them means not making arguments that people already believe in but, at this point, not showing fear, and striking back at the enemy, verbally and, if we have the guts, like Breivik did, physically. [Chechar’s note: Cf. the recent entry Linder on Breivik]

People will only join us when they see 1) we are not afraid (like the cowardly conservatives and Republicans) and that 2) we strike real blows against the enemy. It starts verbally by using slurs. Truly, the continental verbal-political-strategic divide is the use of the term nigger. If you won’t use it under your real name, you are not involved in serious politics. You are merely a conservative. Either use “nigger” or be a niggler, to make a phrase of it.

We gotta be gross large powerful and scary as all fuck, Haller, like a great white shark maw coming up out of the water at the slick black jewmud-seal.

Haller: Speaking as an American, though on this issue I can’t believe matters would be much different in Canada or England—or perhaps any white nation today, given the postwar convergence of governing structures, economies and lifestyles—, it is perfectly obvious to me that our base is among conservatives (I’m tempted to add, “duh”).

Linder: You are inside the box, Haller. You need to get out of the box.

We don’t need to appeal to voters, Leon, we need to attract White men. We don’t do that by our silly positions, we do it by what we are.

We only have one agenda item: whites living normally among whites in a white country under White control. If our cause isn’t negotiable, if it isn’t a matter of voting because it’s deeper than that (our existence is not up for debate) then talking about appeals and who and how we need to alter our position smorgasbord is actually obscene, if you think about it. It reduces our cause to cheap trifling. It makes petty what is profound. Don’t do that. Our cause is not conservative. Appealing to middle-class cowards never has and never will get racialism anywhere. Selfish, cowardly bourgeois won’t fight for anything but lower taxes. They’ll join us all right: when we’re on the verge of winning. So it was with Hitler, and his Germans were a hell of a lot more serious, intelligent and less sketchy than AmeriKwans in 2011.

Haller: My point is that white preservationists will only find allies, if at all, among conventional, as yet “unawakened”, conservatives. So the real question, for those who actually want to do some racial good in the world, for those, that is, for whom intellectual work is not an end in itself, but a guide to desired social change, is, how can we best appeal to the broader world of conservatives?

Linder: If you use the word appeal, you don’t get it. Your mindset is trapped in a petty political world that has nothing to do with deep, real politics—where nothing is off the table. I mean, that’s how we got here.

The jews don’t play fair. Our petty right-wing politics have faced the jews for a hundred years and the jews have won every single time. Maybe we should try something different. Of course we should. What is new and different is using slurs, following a principled, impersonal political line, and attacking everyone not meeting our litmus test as the enemy, with the end goal of destroying the petty right, the stupid, cowardly, lazy conservatives, en route to polarizing the public for the real and final battle between Whites and jews.

The conservative approach has been tried for decades. It has failed. Let’s try a different route.

Haller: As I have argued vociferously and ad nauseam, the answer to this question is “subtly” —not in terms of outspokenness, but intellectual content. In democracies whose (still) white majority populations are remarkably psychologically and thus politically stable, that which is seen as too far outside the mainstream will fail. But the “mainstream” comprises a number of different “streams”, so to speak. If we are going to challenge the racial status quo, which, if left unchallenged, will in the normal course of things destroy us, then we need to be as mainstream as possible in every other way apart from the foundational ideological challenge.

Linder: Wholly wrong. Indeed, comically wrong. You just don’t get it, Haller: the enemy controls all the devices that determine what is normal and who has authority. That’s tv, mostly. But also public schools, preachers, the presidency. A subtle, moderate appeal to cowardly conservatives is going to create an invincible racial radicalism? You can’t be serious. Loud, gross, unsubtle, clear, simple, but above all strong… is what is called for. Strong is the only thing whites understand.

The masses are feminine, Leon. They respond to strength, like a woman. Not niggling weakness. They want to be bowled over, not reasoned with. If they’re scared of ZOG’s penalties for siding with the politics they really want, no rational argument will win them over—only showing there’s a new sheriff in town, and he might just be on the way to kicking ZOG’s ass. Elemental stuff. It always is. Who’s the big dog in the room? Hint: itz never a bunch of conservative faggots. Never. We’re not in an argument. We’re not in a debate. We’re not playing a game. We’re in a fight. And a fight with no rules. Humans are animals, and that is the bottom-line fact. Whites lost their countries through intimidation, and they will only get them back through bravery.

Haller: People like David Duke and especially Jared Taylor came to understand that unconventional grooming habits, wearing funny “uniforms,” indulging in strange gestures or forms of speech, or adhering to bizarre or repugnant (conspiracy) theories and/or ideologies, was simply less effective than appearing “clean-cut” and as culturally and psychologically normal as possible.

Linder: Yeah, and I’m an average white guy watching Polished Turd get abused off his own paid-for podium by a bunch of teenage pussies [see here]. Yeah, I’m signing up with kosher racialism real quick. Looks like fun. We whine and niggle (what Jerry calls gentlemanliness), and get our ass kicked.

No strength? No power. Where’s the strength in conservatism? Just some arguments. Arguments without heroes to champion them do nothing. As Hitler said—and he was a winner, unlike conservatives— “it is not enough that you believe: you must fight.” Truth shall not prevail without a sword at her side.

Why did people follow Hitler, Haller? Was it his arguments? Or was it that they knew he meant what he said and would back it with his life? You can’t even find among your cowardly conservatives a leader with the guts to use “nigger” in public. And you’re going fuck The People with that dick?

Haller: This emphasis on conventionality ought to extend to ideology. Thus, in assessing how to get a hearing for WP [White preservationist] concerns from conservatives…

Linder: Real men lead. They don’t “appeal” or “try to get a hearing.” Passive, passive, passive, wimpy, wimpy, wimpy, loser, loser, loser.

I hate to use a niggerism, but either go big or don’t go at all. This wimpy democratic-electoral appeal to lazy, cowardly, selfish middle-class khaki wearers is ridiculous. You can’t take crap like that and escher it into revolutionary warriors. That ought to be obvious. What we need to do is be the Conans, and by our sheer powerful awesomeness attract the barbarians. Then the lamenting women—an apter description of conservatives could hardly be devised—will follow us. “Appealing” to the conformist middle-classes is the political equivalent of putting women on a pedestal. It doesn’t work except to produce misery. Only ideological racial fanatics can do that. Accept it. Help generate those fanatics.

Haller: …our only possible mass base, we need to understand conservatives, and try to show that WP—and the policies it requires: ending immigration, ending the anti-white racial spoils system, building white consciousness as an aspect of conservative consciousness—is a natural outgrowth of conservatism (which, in fact, it is).

Linder: Race is the basis of what you’re going to preserve, since culture springs from it. The culture comes from the race. Not the other way around.

To ordinary people, conservatism is whatever comes out of Bill O’Reilly’s mouth, or Rush Limbaughs’. And that’s liberalism on the most basic thing—race. People don’t think, they parrot. You don’t persuade them, you become the authority. To people, who are almost all women, authority is the argument.

Haller: This means in part, especially in America, demonstrating the ethical compatibility between Christianity—the belief system of a clear majority of American conservatives, extending far beyond just the noisier and narrower Bible-thumping Christian “Right”—and policies of white preservation.

Linder: Try this instead: “Niggers are flash mobbing our neighborhoods? Let’s go flash mob some niggers.”

Yeah. That crude. Necessarily. People are not intellectuals. People do not think. We don’t need to argue, we need to bulk up. Verbally and physically—simultaneously.

How did Whites act when they were free and sovereign? They used racial epithets and lynched troublemakers—jew, mud and white. By degree jews stole to power, and made those healthy actions “hate” crimes and enforced taboos against even noticing racial differences, let alone acting on them. We don’t get back to where we were by playing along with the rules of the New Racial Order.

Haller: In much larger part, it means jettisoning, or at the very least muting, those aspects of WN which conservatives will find anathema.

Linder: So crazy it beggars belief. We are to suck up to weaklings to gain political power. How is that possibly a winning strategy? The jews didn’t get power by appealing to people but by kicking their ass, in every possible way. We will only get that power back by kicking their kikey ass. Appealing to mouthbreathing Foxtards as a strategy is, again, so far past ridiculous it makes one question your motives in suggesting it.

Haller: Force a conservative to choose between Christ and Hitler, and 99% of the time, he will choose the former. That is a fact that needs to be dealt with, even by atheist or NS WNs.

Linder: Planted axiom: that it matters what christians or conservatives think. It does not. They’re stupid, scared dogs, and will support who they’re told to by their bought bosses, as all evidence shows. They are irrelevant to the struggle between Whites and jews until the Fox-faux-right, the controlled opposition, is destroyed and the real parties doing battle are seen by everybody, from the 10-watts to the 100-watts, to be WHITES and JEWS. And then the christian-conservative cuntlings will side with the white side because as bad as evil-nazis might be, jew commies are worse. Until that point, what the christ cultists think is irrelevant. They’re just dumb tools and safely ignorable.

Haller: But even if racial fascism is where the Euroright needs to get to, the present paradox is that it will not get there by advertising this fact openly. The key for all white nations is, as I’ve stated previously, gradual radicalization, the insinuation of white consciousness and pro-white policy advocacy into conservative discourse.

Linder: “Gradual radicalization”… Haller, it just doesn’t work like this.

Imagine any successful revolutionary saying the stuff you’re saying. Imagine Hitler talking about subtly influencing people, gradually radicalizing them. Either you’re leading and loud and laughing, or you’re limping, lingering and lamenting. Nothing sneaky or superficial, shallow, subtle can work. It must be plain and strong.

Again, this is so obvious it is hard to believe you actually believe what you’re typing. You’re going insinuate and gradually radicalize conservatives? Really? Maybe if you controlled Fox News. Otherwise, no. And even if you did control Fox, why would you go by degree? You’d just flip policy overnight, and your audience would follow cluelessly.

There’s not one hundredth of Fox viewers who can define conservatism in a way Burke would recognize. They’re intellectual niggers. Conservatism is simply whatever a publicly labeled conservative just said, even if he said the opposite yesterday. And since you don’t have any major media outlets, and every official vector is controlled by the enemy, a policy of insinuation is utterly impossible.

Haller: We must be as moderate as possible.

Linder: And with that, you’re taking over my job. Good friggin’ grief.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://chechar.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/vanguardist-response-to-a-mainstreamer/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

8 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. (copied from MR)

    Chechar,

    Sorry re “WP”. “White preservationist”.

    I prefer that term to “White Nationalist” for two reasons. First, I consider nationalism, as an ideology, to be on the Left. I realize that this can get confusing, as I have called myself a nationalist, and even a WN, many times. But ultimately, I am simply a (true) conservative (and what makes labeling confusing is that most self-styled “conservatives” are not).

    I wish to preserve Western (European-Christian) Civilization. As I have stated many times over the years, WC is a phenotype of the Aryan genotype (to express the matter with the kind of sociobiological phrasing and outlook seemingly favored at MR), or as the late Samuel Francis put it, “our civilization could not have been created apart from the genetic endowments of the European peoples” – to which I would add, nor is there any reason to suppose that it will be perpetuated by non-European (Aryan) peoples. Racial particularity, imo, is an integral part of, arguably, any civilization, (perhaps Islamic Civ is an exception, though I’m not sure – it may be an ideological cover for Arab supremacism), but certainly it is of our civilization. (Note this should not be understood to imply that WC is wholly autochthonous; indeed, one aspect of the genius of the West has always been its ability to appropriate, assimilate, improve and often redirect to other uses ideas and achievements of other peoples.)

    Thus, if a conservative wishes to preserve his inherited traditions and way of life, he must seek to preserve his people. Preserving one’s people is primarily a biological, and only secondarily a cultural, issue. It means first, maintaining a numerical preponderance of one’s own ethnic group within one’s historic territory, and, second, preventing outbreeding of one’s people with members of other human populations too genetically dissimilar for their descendants to be nationally/culturally assimilable. Put another way, preserving one’s people entails maintaining the racial purity of their blood (or ‘ethnogenome’), and ensuring their overwhelming population dominance of a historic, sovereign territory.

    That most “conservatives” are hypocrites, cowards or fools, does not change the essential nature of conservatism. Given the bastardization of the term, however, perhaps true conservatives (ie, those who recognize the centrality of race/biology to the conservative’s ultimate goal of preservation and perpetuation) ought to call their ideology Racial Conservatism.

    I am not an expert in the history of nationalism as an ideology (or political practice), but I do know that historically it has been a radicalizing and destabilizing force, and not one associated either with Christianity or conservatism. In essence the nationalist believes that an authentic nation (understood traditionally, as those who either share or believe themselves to share a common human/tribal ancestry) should be self-governing, either as a matter of morality, or social harmony and civic efficiency. WN, it seems to me, is a very modern ideology with two postulates: 1) whites should seek to live in sovereign, segregated and therefore white-governed, polities; and 2) where whites are caught by circumstance in multiracial societies, they should organize politically to defend and advance their own racial group interests.

    Now as I write those postulates, I find myself in agreement with them. So perhaps I am a WN after all. However, there is a third aspect of WN I find deeply troubling, which constitutes the second reason why I am reluctant to accept the label, even though, as a true conservative, I’m concerned with white preservation, and as a white man, and thus a member of a politically oppressed class, I want my fellow whites to resist our racial persecution (whether that persecution is by treasonous and/or ethnic-alien political elites, or violent nonwhites acting on their own). This aspect concerns the “rasse uber alles” (if I got the German right) aspect of what is called WN in contemporary discourse.

    I don’t mean to criticize white supremacism in historically white, but lately ‘diversified’, societies (ie/eg, while England is a white nation, and thus ought to return to a “whites-only” demographic status, within the present multiracial reality, it certainly seems morally obligatory that the indigenous should have superior legal status to non-indigenous, whether in school admissions, professional opportunities, public benefits, police protection, cultural recognition, etc). Rather, I do not share what appears to be the widespread, and perhaps dominant, WN view that race qua race trumps all other metaphysical, moral, and ideological considerations.

    As with most persons, even seasoned scholars, I do not have a personal, comprehensive political philosophy (let alone an entire personal metaphysics), though elaborating upon my own ideological vision is a central ambition of my life going forward. I’m not precisely sure of where I stand on a host of political issues, other than as a matter of brute prejudice or preference. That said, I am sure I will never contemplate all issues from a standpoint of racial power alone, which is what WN seems to demand. Preserving the white race is, for me, simply one aspect (albeit a foundational, and today, perhaps dominant one) of a broader conservative agenda.

    Moreover, I am not, objectively, a racial radical. Yes, expelling all nonwhite residents from Europe is extremely radical by present regime standards. Yes, legislating fairly rigorous natalist and eugenicist policies is radical by today’s standards. But today’s standards are not objectively centrist, but highly radical, indeed revolutionary, in themselves, at least by modal historical standards or doctrines. So the fact that I want European nations to look as they did for millenia makes me not a radical, but an undoer of radicalism. This conservative/reactionary stance is not what the Nazis exhibited or sought, nor how I interpret the goals of much of the WN movement.

    • Thanks LH, I’ve now added brackets in this article explaining what “WP” means.

  2. Let me add that I probably should respond to the Linder critique, and will try to later in the week (maybe at MR, and copied here – I never visit VNN, indeed was not even familiar with it before someone else at MR mentioned the critique of me). I do not have time at the moment, or possibly for several days.

  3. Moldbug’s Ten:

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/017502.html

    “Power drives thought. Seize power and thought will change itself.

    The question all conservatives, libertarians and reactionaries need to be asking themselves: how do we organize to seize power? For me, the winning combination is the combination of absolute government with absolute truth.

    Therefore, my program is to find the truth first and the power later. This means that counting heads … is for the present entirely superfluous and irrelevant.

    I would rather have ten people, all in possession of the same absolute truth, than ten million tea partiers who agree on nothing but glittering lies and myths. For my ten is a viable government in exile–if they somehow gained power, they would keep it–whereas your ten million have no real collective identity at all. Even if they grow to a hundred million and elect all the politicians in Washington, actual power will elude them …

    When you have a viable program for ruling and a government in exile (ie, a real political party–every real political party is a government in exile), you have a structure which, unlike the tea parties, exudes *potential* power. It is off–completely out of power–but if you turned it on, it would work. This is naturally attractive to human beings, who all lust for power. Power is always fashionable. Fashion is always powerful. As a recent Rasmussen poll revealed, only 23% of Americans believe their government enjoys their consent–so why does it remain? Because there is no alternative. Create a viable alternative, and power will flow to it as water runs downhill.

    To pursue in any such program, of course, you have to completely abandon your liberalism. You have to stop believing in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers, the Pledge of Allegiance, the Flag, and all that crap–the entire American political pantheon. This is not to be replaced with nihilism, of course, but with an understanding of the deeper, older European tradition.”

  4. Chechar: Thanks for introducing me to Mr.Linder in this thread and the Brevik one. I don’t use his language, but I like his attitude. He tells it like it is. He goes to the source of the problem, which many others skirt around; ie, the various ism’s that I mentioned in one of my own recent posts at my place. The ism’s which appear to be many – marxism, feminism, etc., are actually one and entered the world through the mind of the jew.

    Some time ago I was reading at OD where Wallace and Linder were having a battle in the comments over something or other, I don’t recall. That’s the first time I saw his name.

  5. Thank you for this exchange, it helped me see more clearly which approach is more effective. When the smaller party is outnumbered a million to one, it must fight with stealth at first. Strong and brave, yes, but foolishly brash, no. Winner: Haller.

  6. Murkan-centric…and Murka is finished, ergo, there is no debate. If I cannot take the notion of “Libertarian National Socialist” seriously, how am I to take seriously anything that springs from that foundation?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: