Messages

Here is a place where I've been posting for a week:
Referral Link for Unvarnished http://theforbiddentruth.net/index.php?referrerid=1048

If anyone in SPG wants to get in on a little "net activism" there, use my referral link and let me know you've joined and your handle. I've already met a Creator from Europe there. He needs to be CA. Criticism of the Jew is not restricted at Forbidden Truth. Don't go in pushing Creativity until you've gotten your feet wet. 20 posts before the new FT member is taken off moderation. There are a lot of interactive features that I've never seen before. A lot of fired up Youtube-type video technerds there. Cutting edge types, to me. 

Will aka "Unvarnished"

I posted the following at in the comments section of VNN's Main Page today. I'm inviting interested readers to click on my name which brings them here:
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=5528&cpage=2#comment-113702
----------------------------------------------------
Will Williams Says:
15 August, 2009 at 5:15 pm

Blackshirt Says: 14 August, 2009 at 3:02 am

—
"New America" says:
"Well, damn it, Covington has provided the Vision, and removed all of the excuses."

Total Covington... the endless self promoter. I read his stuff about 15 years ago and he is still the same. When he attacked Dr. Pierce and Tom Metzger he was in the shitcan for me.
—

Blackshirt Says: 14 August, 2009 at 11:17 pm

—
"I'm a fan of Harold Covington because he defines the most important issue of our time"

I seriously doubt you are a "fan" of Covington, you most likely ARE Covington. Answer me this Harold, why don't you acknowledge the conversation about you above? What do you have to say about your past actions and statements against Tom Metzger, Will Williams and Dr. Pierce?
—

New America is not Covington. HAC wouldn't be so sloppy with the "facts," as he has repeated them for around thirty years. NA can't duplicate HAC's style. The more he writes the more it's easy to see, to one familiar with HAC's unique phraseology. "Martin" could be HAC, but is likely Pastor Martin Lindstadt, another fan of HAC's. Lindstat is permabanned from VNNF, too, but has allowed me to openly challenge Defendant Covington ('Williams v. Covington' in "WN Lounge") on his discussion board. One can get a glimpse of how HAC defends himself from Plaintiff Williams from here. Be warned, Pastor Lindstadt, he of the Double-Seedline doctrine, doesn't care much for VNNF and doesn't hold back saying so on his own free speech forum:

http://www.pastorlindstedt.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=121

—
"The largest v-bulletin forums, $permFront and VNNF/TGMNNF are simply ZOG false-fronts, designed to get the whiggers to act like deranged cattle chasing they'se shit-encrusted tails with their teef. VNNF was always hostile to Christians, be they CI or otherwise..."
—

Entertaining stuff, if you can follow all his self-invented slang. Lindstadt doesn't care much for me — calls me "Whigger Swill, the Creatard" — but he allows me to say my piece, uncensored. That's more than I can say for a dozen or so other "pro-White" boards.

No offense, "Irma Grese," (I've only noticed one post of yours), but if I were to guess which poster in this thread is a HAC sockpuppet, it would be you, the other half of New America's tag team.

—
Irma Grese Says: 14 August, 2009 at 2:48 am

New America, do you have a webpage or a blog?? Because your writing & ideas are very intelligent and very compelling and I would very much like to read moar!
—

New America then posts Covington's links. The trained eye has seen this particular ploy used by HAC many times.

Socrates, will you please consider putting up Kevin Strom's two-part "White Zion" ADV transcript on the Main page? It would be from back around 2003. It would provide a more proper background for a Pierce vs. Covington discussion. White Zion vs. Big tent, Xian-friendly "Butler Plan."

Parsifal, you can just click on my name Will Williams in blue and it takes you to the Creativity Alliance site where you can sign up and send me a PM. You'll like the company there — not a Xling in the crowd. No arguing there any more than our kinsmen would argue with each other in their Xian churches. The makings of a true vanguard. Tell 'em Will sent you.

[Von Brunn's court-appointed attorney, A.J. Kramer, the federal public defender for the District, declined comment when asked if he is Jewish, terming the question "obnoxious." Kramer said he has met Von Brunn, but declined comment about that encounter or any matters related to the case.]

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0dVOfp85EmbwP/610x.jpg

Caption: [Prostitution ring leader] Deborah Palfrey of Vallejo, Calif., left, walks with her public defender A.J. Kramer, outside federal court in Washington, Friday, March 9, 2007, after her arraignment on federal racketeering charges.
---

Von Brunn's court-appointed attorney, A.J. Kramer, the federal public defender for the District, declined comment when asked if he is Jewish, terming the question "obnoxious." Kramer said he has met Von Brunn, but declined comment about that encounter or any matters related to the case.

http://jcrc.convio.net/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5969&news_iv_ctrl=0

Anyone want to bet against this court appointed defender of the notorious "Nazi" being a Jew? Would Mr. Kramer find the question obnoxious if he'd been asked if he was a Xian?

[Seven.]

cont'd...

Seven.

European Americans will not survive many more generations under the present regime.

Racially-conscious conservatives are counting on a future white backlash to mobilize in defense of white interests. Through such a mobilization, and a much talked about, though little practiced, "march through the institutions," they hope to raise white racial consciousness, counter the demographic threat posed by nonwhites, and introduce political and legal reforms to curtail nonwhite power — all of which, of course, are totally desirable.

But they expect to arrive at this Utopia without explaining how they would counter a population half of which will be nonwhite in 33 years (2042); without explaining how they would challenge a government that criminalizes white dissent; without explaining how a system can be fundamentally changed without fundamentally changing the institutions and powers that govern it and make it what it is; without any of these things, racial conservatives mock the notion of secession, as if their own not particularly successful project is the sole conceivable alternative.

Eight.

Unlike their critics, secessionists have a plan, a simple, straightforward one, that offers whites an alternative to an unreformable system and an inescapable death.
This plan has the advantage of being (a) eminently political, (b) based on proven historical precedents, and (c) imbued with the power to generate a will to nationhood.

Given the increasingly totalitarian nature of the existing system, where the mere mention of "race" can be taken as an incitement to crimes against humanity, this aspect of secession, ought, perhaps, to be discussed in historical rather than explicitly programmatic terms.

Much of the history of European nationalism speaks to the American situation today, especially (in my admittedly partisan view) Irish nationalism.

In the 1870s and '80s, a generation after the An Gorta Mor (the Great Hunger), revolutionary and conservative nationalists agreed to be allies in the common struggle for Irish nationhood. The revolutionary Fenians, preeminently in the form of Michael Davitt's Land League, which led the rebellion in the countryside, gave the constitutionalists in Parnell's Irish Parliamentary Party the social leverage to force concessions from the English at Westminster — concessions that eventually won back many Irish lands. Then, once the constitutionalists had gone as far as they could, by about 1912 or 1914, the revolutionary, physical-force wing of Irish nationalism took over, completing the nationalist project.

We American secessionists want whatever works best for the future of our people. If our "constitutionalists," perhaps in the form of a third party, can create dissension and vulnerability among the "English" in a way that promotes American interests, they are to be supported. But if they fail, others will turn, as did the Irish, to the methods of Connelly and Pearse.

Those who know Hibernian — or any other European — nationalist history also know the immeasurable power of the nation, especially the nation rising to nationhood.

This is the spirit we secessionists hope to stir in white Americans.

The situation today may, therefore, be totally grim, but politically there is no more feasible or marketable of strategies to awaken our people, especially as they become aware of their approaching minority status and all it implies.

Imagine, then, for a moment, a white homeland in North America, free of the US government, with its colored multitudes and parasitic institutions: In my mind, this one image says everything, explains everything, promises everything.

The powerful imagery of an autonomous white nation has, moreover, the mythic potential that the General Strike had in the thought of Georges Sorel.

All great movements, Sorel saw, are driven not by rational arguments or party programs, but by their myths (which "are not descriptions of things, but expressions of a determination to act").

For it is myth — and the memories and hopes animating it — that shape a nation, that turn a "motley horde" into a people with a shared sense of purpose and identity, that mobilize them against the state of things, and prepare them for self-sacrifice and self-rule.

A Sovereign Independent State, as the Irish called it in 1916 — the White Republic, as I call it — is the secessionist myth, symbolizing the determination of white men to assert themselves as a free nation-state somewhere in an all-white America.
---end---

[Four.]

Four.

The ethnogenic process that gradually imposed a common culture and identity on the former colonists, as they became Virginians and New Englanders, and more generally, Americans, was interrupted in the 1840s by the mass influx of Irish and German Catholics — the former seen almost as an alien race. Then, in the late 19th century, this was followed by a second great immigrant wave, from Southern and Eastern Europe.

Today the Third World invasion is taking the ethnogenic process to a new extreme, as the state, with its inorganic definition of the nation, endeavors to "transcend" the perennially white, Christian character of the American people for the sake of its oxymoronic "universal nation."

At each nodal point in this demographic transformation, except the most recent, native Americans, however resistant to the newcomers, succeeded in assimilating them on the basis of their racial ascriptions, as the Anglo-Protestant character of American identity became progressively more "ecumenical."

Indeed, it's increasingly difficult today to talk of "hyphenated-Americans," given that the different European ethnic strains making up the white population have so extensively intermarried that many now no longer know their ethnic origins. As one historian writes: "Ellis Island whiteness" has come to replace "Plymouth Rock whiteness."

But there were obvious limits to assimilation. As Woodrow Wilson put it: "We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race." Against this view, many "new," especially Jewish immigrants, advanced the cause for greater ethnic diversity, as if America's vocation was to become a boardinghouse to all the world's peoples. The Old America, though, would have none of this, and, in Stoddard's words, dismissed such claims with the insistence "that America is basically 'made' — and that it shall not be unmade."

When the post-1945 National Security State, armed with its newly acquired "mandate of heaven," endeavored to turn Roosevelt's liberal-managerial state system into a world empire, premised on the belief that it was based on an idea, not a people, it launched what amounted to an assault on America's historic identity — an assault whose overarching aim was to undermine the population's racial consciousness and promote ethnocidal practices facilitating its "demographic" reconstitution. The state's "anti-racism" came thus to serve as an instrument of its social engineers, who sought to turn whites into herds of "tamed sheep [who] care not in which flock [they] are driven."

It was only natural, then, that once the shearing got under way the most racially conscious whites began to see themselves as an oppressed nation in need of their own sovereign state.

Five.

Racial conservatives have offered numerous criticisms of nationalists advocating secession from the United States. The most common of these — made in a period which has witnessed successful secessionist movements (in the former SU, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc.), as well as other popular movements resisting a despotic, leveling centralization in the name of regionalism, devolution, and the defense of historic identities — is that the prospect of creating a white ethnostate in North America free of the United States is totally unrealizable . . . a fantasy . . . pure and utter folly.

But this, they fail to realize, is hardly criticism at all.

For those with the courage of their convictions, it's never a matter of calculating the odds and going with the winning side, but of doing what needs to be done — like that Roman soldier of Pompeii cited by Spengler in Man and Technics, whose Aryan sense of duty kept him at his post, as Vesuvius exploded in fire.

Viewed "objectively," neither secession nor a white conservative reconquest has a chance, not one in a universe of infinite possibilities. Both are figments of a few white minds troubled by the prospect of their people's imminent demise.

But that's the way all great movements begin.

If a presently unattainable ideal is not first articulated as a mythic possibility, it remains unrealized, for its idealization is part of the process that quickens its realization.

In 1774, only a few believed in American independence. After 1776 it was a critical mass.

Paraphrasing Sorel, secession cannot be submitted to the usual criticism — no more than could the Second Coming of "Primitive Christianity" or the General Strike of fin-de-siècle syndicalists. It's not a fact or even an idea so much as it is a way of being — or a wanting to be.

Central to its realization, therefore, is not the objective forces opposing it, but the subjective will seeking its triumph.

Many things, of course, would have to change before either secession or reconquest become remotely realizable (though our postmodern age, the Kali Yuga of the Traditionalists, is an age in which time and events have greatly accelerated, as all things hurtle toward the inevitable crackup, the Ragnarok, which precedes every rebirth).

The thought, nevertheless, of whites breaking free of the United States, in this period when the multi-cult empire is experiencing the first of its death agonies, seems, from a secessionist perspective, somewhat less of a fantasy than trying to reform it, which sixty years of experience suggest is unreformable.

Six.

Almost every criticisms that can be made of secession is to be found in Sam Francis's "Prospects for Racial and Cultural Survival" (1995).

Sam, who I have paid high tribute to in the pages of this journal, was an important transitional figure in the development of a white nationalist outlook. Though one of his feet was solidly planted in the white nationalist camp, the other, however, was never quite freed from his former "new right" and paleocon beliefs. Divided, his critique of secession reflected an old-fashioned patriotism unwilling to break from the US — though, perhaps, if he had lived, he might feel differently, now that the dusky helmsman has begun steering the ship of state perilously close to the shoals of what promises to be an even more horrendous fate.

As an anti-secessionist, Sam considered separation from the United States tantamount to surrender — surrender of the country our ancestors created, surrender of its history, traditions, interests.

But Sam was wrong.

Secessionists surrender nothing but the slow death of their people. For among other things, secession is about survival — and the prospect of being able to fight another day.

To do that, one must live. But where, how?

For all practical purposes whites have lost the United States. Though still a near majority, they are surrounded by armed forces seeking their destruction, they are running out of ammunition, and the ground troops are being ordered in to clean up the remaining pockets of resistance. It looks as if they're doomed.

Secession is a way of avoiding the deadly pincers closing in on white life.
In the last sixty years, absolutely NOTHING — not one little thing — has been accomplished to interrupt the programmed destruction of European America.
Nevertheless, the critics of secession drone on: "Why give up the country when you can take it back?"

These two-fisted patriots who think this is the most powerful argument against secession are likely to be singing the same song in the not too distanced future, when colored novelists start writing about "The Last of the Europeans."

But even if feasible, what self-respecting white man would want to take back the United States, this monstrous, bureaucratic Leviathan whose Jewish, race-mixing, homophile, feminist, fraudulent, anti-Christian, and degenerate practices stand as an affront to everything his ancestors stood for.

The hard truth is that it's gotten to the point where the US can no longer be defended as "my mother, drunk or sober," only repulsed as an alien body-snatcher.

To this end, secessionists emulate the proud Danes, who said after the loss of Schleswig-Holstein in 1865, that "What has been lost externally will be gained internally."

Secessionists refuse not just to abide the state responsible for their dispossession, they see this "abomination of desolation" as their principal enemy. Only by freeing themselves from it and acquiring their own land under their own sovereignty do they see a future for their kind.

One might call this "surrendering large parts of the country to nonwhites" — though these aliens already occupy large parts of it and will continue to do so until whites are completely replaced.

The secessionists' ultimate consideration is not, then, what will be lost, but what gives whites the best chance to survive.

"Any proposal for separation," Sam argued, "would simply alienate the most patriotic and nationalist loyalties of American whites and lead them to see separatists as un-American." Most whites would also "refuse to abandon their allegiance to the US or forsake its territory."

Here Sam confused loyalty to the state with loyalty to the nation, paying tribute, in effect, to Caesar in his own coin. Given the logic of his argument, one might question what his position would have been in 1774, when secession from the Mother Country was originally proposed? Or what his position would be if the United States should start following in the footsteps of the former Soviet Union? And, finally, one wonders how patriotic most Americans are going to be once they discover that their grandchildren will be paying off the debts of the present US government — at a time when American citizenship will probably be little more than a form of Chinese peonage.

Secessionists don't care if most whites would refuse to abandon "their" country. "Most" whites, de-Ayranized as they are, allowed a Negro to become president.
Only those who care for their kind and are willing to fight for them can possibly found a new nation.

The flag-waving, Constitution-worshipping types — who know nothing outside the ideology of liberal democracy, old ("conservative") or new ("progressive"), and who believe that there is something sacred about the unholy United States — will never be mobilized for the sake of "racial preservation"; that ship has sailed.

In secessionist eyes, it's better to lose a bit of territory and shed the race's detritus than to lose whatever remains of the white nation — especially in view of the coming age, which is certain to be filled with cascading catastrophes, set off by the imploding contradictions of liberalism's dystopian regime.

In the context of such a possible development, Sam wondered how the races could possibly be separated and what would prevent them from "unseparating." Here again he didn't see what was coming. Since the end of the Second World War there have been numerous population transfers by partitioned states (the most important of which were sanctioned by the US). These transfers occurred in the recent past, will undoubtedly occur again, and already occur in little ways every day in the US, as the relocation of nonwhites forces whites out of their neighborhoods.

Secession implies both population transfers and territorial partition — historically justifiable measures, sanctioned by US precedent, and executable with a minimum of force, unlike the pipe dreams of anti-secessionists, whose imagined "reconquest" would be of a state with a hundred million nonwhite citizens, all with their hands out.

In its desire for cheap labor, Sam thought a separate white nation, would simply repeat the process that got whites into the present mess — as if the struggle for secession (and all it will entail) wouldn't lead to an explicitly racial definition of nationality, to an inversion of the market's primacy, and to a spiritual triumph over the materialism that has corrupted so many whites. As a conservative, he couldn't see that white secession (unlike the secession of the Confederacy) is a revolutionary project premised on a rejection not just of the illegal alienations of the federal government, but of the entire social, economic, and moral order sustaining its ethnocidal rule.

A white breakaway state, Sam also claimed, would be surrounded by hostile powers, vulnerable to invasion, and unable to defend itself against the rising demographic tide outside its borders. But the racially homogeneous populace of a seceded white republic would be imbued with the nationalist fervor that is the inevitable offshoot of newly forged nations.

It is doubtful that a mutilated United States, with its warring racial factions, welfare politics, and rubber-spine army would be able to crush an armed, autonomous white republic. Even at the height of its expansionist powers, Nazi Germany never thought of invading tiny, mountainous Switzerland, where every citizen was armed and ready to defend his nation. The US Army, need it be said, is no Wehrmacht.

Cont'd...