[This is the first (the next podcasts restarts as number 1 as it moved to BitChute) of hopefully many podcasts from The Occidental Observer contributor and scholar Andrew Joyce on the “jewish problem/question“, titled “Talmud and Taboo“.

The problem is that Orgjew engages in activities that are deeply hostile to the West while at the same time constantly attempting to hide and deny that fact, as part of its strategy of long-term White genocide and the creation of a Jew World Order.

— KATANA]

[Cover image — The bottom image is the painting: “The Conjurer,” painted by Hieronymus Bosch. The painting accurately displays a performer doing the cups and balls routine, which has been practiced since Egyptian times. The shell game does have some origins in this old trick. The real trick of this painting is the pickpocket who is working for the conjurer. The pickpocket is robbing the spectator who is bent over.

The top painting: Talmud Readers by Adolf Behrman.

Overlaid on the painting is the jewish star.]

The Occidental Observer

Andrew Joyce’s Podcast

Talmud and Taboo

Part 1

June 29, 2020

Click here for the audio:

https://www.spreaker.com/user/12735720/welcome-to-the-jq

[Jul 3, 2020 — The audio is no longer available at Spreaker — taken down by Spreaker]

_____________

But, you can listen to the podcast here:

Or download the audio file here (right click link and “Save Link As”):

Andrew Joyce – Talmud and Taboo – 01 – 20200630

Published on Jun 29, 2020

TOO Description

First published at 15:27 UTC on June 29th, 2020.

Editor’s note: Andrew Joyce has undertaken to do a podcast series, Talmud and Taboo. Enjoy!

TRANSCRIPT

(14:26)

[00:00]

Barbara Lerner SPECTRE:

“I think there’s a resurgence of anti-semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural, and I think we’re gonna be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place!

Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that.

[She continues: It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.]”

[Image] Jewish activist Barbara Lerner Spectre, second from left.

[00:25]

[Music]

[00:52]

Hello and welcome to “Talmud and Taboo”! The podcast voted most likely to be banned, destroyed, censored, and eliminated within the next 24 hours!

I am your host, Andrew Joyce. Podcast host voted most likely to be arrested within the next 24 hours! Thank you for joining me.

It’s been interesting 24 hours. I looked on with horror at the banning of Richard Spencer’s NPI/Radix podcast channel. And in a way it has prompted me to move into the area of audio-visual presentation of my material.

For those of you familiar with my work this is quite a big departure from what you are used to. I’ve written over 200 essays or articles now for the Occidental Observer dot net, where I have worked closely with Dr Kevin MacDonald, who I am sure everyone is familiar with. And for those of you who aren’t familiar with my work I tend to focus on the “jewish question“. I would suppose 90%, if not more, of my essays concern that topic.

I look to build upon, expand, and maybe in some areas, to take a new direction to the jewish Question as Dr Kevin MacDonald. And I’ve done a couple of podcasts over the years, but it’s not something that I’ve done consistently. To be honest it is not something that I really enjoy doing. I’m much more of a text based activist. I enjoy reading and digging deep in a sort of analytical way. I don’t really get as much enjoyment out of discussing these things verbally, but I understand the importance of doing. So, this is something that I’m now going to devote a little bit more time to.

The last 24 hours have been interesting, as I say, it has prompted this move. The censorship which probably began actually before Charlottesville, just before Charlottesville, has just steadily accelerated over time to the point where it’s almost like every time it looks like this movement, whether you want to call it the dissident right, the Third Position, whatever, every time it starts to build up a little bit of momentum again, something comes in to destroy it. It can be disheartening, it can be frustrating, it can be morale sapping.

So, in this particular instance I’ve decided to throw another voice out there. I’ve decided to create another podcast. It maybe in this giant game of left-wing wack-a-mole, this podcast is destroyed relatively quickly. I will save the podcast that I record for posterity. I will attempt to put them up on different platforms as required.

I don’t know what Spreaker is like in terms of censorship. I’m going to give this a go and see how long the podcast can stay up for. I’m just testing the waters. I’m going to test the waters for a section of the podcasts to see if it fulfills any role within the movement at all. To see how it is received by people out there, whether you are a non-shit poster on Twitter, or whether you are Richard Spencer, or whether you are Kevin MacDonald. I want to see how people react to the podcast to see if it’s useful, and we will take it from there.

In terms of a broader picture of what this podcast is meant to do, we all have some baseline knowledge of the jewish Question. This isn’t going to be harping on familiar talking points. I want to get back to intellectual basics, but I also want to take things in a deeper level. I want to get into the philosophy, get into the economics, into the social and political aspects of jewish Question in a really challenging way. To look at the most complex aspects of this issue.

And also, if I can introduce a little bit of entertainment value! It’s not my forte as you can tell from my essays – we tend to be deadly serious and sincere. But I’ll make it as entertaining as possible. I do think that helps to get some messages across.

In terms of the current movement as I see it, there’s a lot of content out there that is philosophical. There’s a lot of content out there with heavy critiques of neo-liberalism, capitalism, communism, woke leftism. All of that is fantastic! I appreciate all of that content. I agree with so much of it.

But what I have noticed is a definite drift away from discussions of the jewish Question, in and of itself. Perhaps this is fatigue, perhaps we don’t know how to transition from a [word unclear] where we have looked at it predominately through the lens of a kind of humour. There has been a lot of shit-posting about Jews, concerning Jews, over the last four or five years in particular. But I have noticed a fatigue set in.

The Daily Stormer – A Normie’s Guide to the Alt-Right

I did notice – and I find it very interesting that Andrew Anglin deleted the jewish problems section from the Daily Stormer – I think that is symptomatic of the drift away from the discussing this topic again. And it is something in a later podcast I am going to dissect and discuss, because I do think this is an interesting development, in and of itself – I have some ideas about it. And I think we need to look into as to why that has happened.

But, for the time being I think we should come right back to basics and we should look into the problems we are facing right now, and then we kind of just move from there, and we do look back at history and engage in as much comparative work as possible.

It can be difficult right now, at the present moment, to actually see where the jewish influence is coming from, where it’s going, what are its motivations, what are its techniques and methods.

With the banning of NPI/Radix from YouTube I see a lot of commentary online:

“Oh! It’s the CEO of YouTube. And what’s going on with the board there. And who are these anonymous people making these banning decisions and what have you within YouTube.”

YouTube, just like Twitter, Google, whatever it might be, the problems don’t end there. These people are acting on legislative proposals, policy recommendations, and really dubious, and in many cases false reports. Developed [?] organizations like the Anti-Defamation League, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, which probably since 2013, 2014, have been working on restricting free speech. This is a policy development, this is a form of activism that is probably, in a real and immediate sense, about six, or seven years old.

But really the tradition of jewish efforts to restrict free speech probably goes back almost a century, at least! And that is if you want to discount efforts in the Middle Ages, or the early modern period. And the early modern early period in terms of limiting the freedoms of non-jews just by working closely with elites in order to stymie conversation and smother dissent about Jewish activism.

So this is a part of a longer trajectory, and we really need to look at the bigger picture. I think in one of the early podcasts we do we will actually look at some of the policy movers and shakers. They are normally jewish. Some of them are actually Israeli, even. And they tend to have an academic, some media, background. And we will look into some of the proposals that were made, when they were made.

And we will try and track how these initial jewish moves have resulted in the fact that most of these big tech companies have more or less just rolled over and shown their belly. They are completely submissive. The trend and trajectory of culture right now is to just submit to the full force of censorship demands in the name of “woke” leftism, defending supposedly oppressed minorities. And in many cases this is going to get a lot worse. It’s going to go really widespread.

So I want to pick up on that with one of the earlier podcasts. And then we’ll move from that to the issue of jewish influence as a whole.

Right now I think as we set off in this first short, brief podcast, is just to say:

“Well what is the jewish Question?”

I’m assuming if most of you have tuned in to this in the first place that you already know my work, which means you already know a great deal about the jewish Question. But if you are completely new to this issue, the only thing to say at this point is:

“What is the jewish Question?”

Well, it’s two questions. The first question is:

“Are jews a cohesive group?”

The second question is:

“Does that group have out-sized or disproportionate influence, and is that influence harmful to the majority population, the host population?”

In terms of the first question we look at parallel narratives here, parallel realities in some sense. On the one hand jews are most definitely a group! They self describe as a group, they organize as a group. Every thing they do demonstrates group behaviour. The diaspora and Israel are symbiotically linked. This is disavowed and denied by jews the world over, but we know that it is linked!

We know that support flows from the diaspora, political, financial, even in terms of morale. There are different forms of support that flow from the diaspora to Israel. And in a way, we could argue that Israel simply couldn’t survive without the diaspora. That is why the Jewish state was never going to be a solution to the jewish problem. That is why more than half a decade, approaching a century, I suppose, in a couple of decades from the founding of the state of Israel we still have a major jewish problem around the world.

The nexus of that problem may have shifted slightly from Europe to the United States, but it remains a very, very, powerful Western problem. The problem of jewish influence in Western society has persisted, and it will persist until we reach absolutely coherent and satisfactory conclusions!

The second question is this influence that they have out-sized? Is it out-sized? Does this group have out-sized influence? Well we can track influence numerically. We can look at the number of jewish politicians there are in our parliaments, and congresses. We can look at the number of jews that there are in really influential aspects of society, like the media, like the government, like finance, like education, like academia. We can track all of this.

And it’s quite obvious that there is an over-representation there. And we can look at it qualitatively. We can say that these members of these various spheres of society, these jewish members, most definitely advocate for jewish interests. In many cases they’re quite explicit about that.

So what’s the problem then? What’s the confusion?

Well, the confusion about the jewish problem, the reason why jewish influence is everywhere, and yet somehow nowhere, is that it is simultaneously denied. Jews will organize as a group to deny that they are a group! They will use the fact that they have organized. They will pool their resources, they will act as a group! And in doing so, use all of those group resources to deny that they are a group!

So they will disseminate an article, for example, that jews are as individualistic as anyone else, that jewish financial criminals were acting completely on their own. It has no broader ramifications with the jewish population as a whole. And so we get a kind of vicious cycle where jews repeatedly engage in group behaviour and deny it, engage in it, deny it, engage in it, deny it!

[Image] Cartoon — Son asks jewish dad for $50. (click image to enlarge)

And these tactics — which we will break down and analyze in the course of these podcast series — have been honed over the course of centuries. It’s why they are so efficient. It’s why in many cases our population is so numbed to it, and somehow so well accustomed to it. But it is everywhere in our education, it’s everywhere in our culture. And that is why so many people are blind to what’s going on in front of them.

One of the goals of these podcasts is to present bite-sized chunks of material, perhaps with each episode focusing on a case study which kind of opens up a much broader aspect of the problem. We can kind of zoom in, we can put something under the microscope and we can say:

“Right, here is an example of jewish influence.”

So, this is the goal of the podcast. Thank you for listening.

As we get under way I look forward to journeying this project together. I don’t know how long it’s going to last. It might last a day, it might last a week. Those of you that followed my stuff on Twitter will see that it was kind of “blaze of glory” type stuff! We ran with it, we got a lot done! Someone flagged it up and I was never able to come back. I saw a Twitter post the other day, someone said:

“When is Joyce coming back? He bestrode the Twittersphere like a giant!”

Those days are over. I’m not coming back. I can’t get into Twitter. I have tried. They are looking out for me. They are keeping an eye on me. It’s not going to happen.

But this is something new and, look, if they have to chase me all over the internet, trying to ban these podcasts, at least it consumes a little bit of energy, on their part. So, I’m happy to do this. I hope everyone enjoys it.

And thank you for tuning in.

[14:16]

END

[Readers: If you see any errors (however minor), or ways to improve things, in the transcript, please let me know in the Comment section. Also please share the link to this transcript, so others can benefit. Thanks.]

============================================

See Also

top

Luke Ford – Andrew Joyce On The Jewish Question — Apr 17, 2017 — Transcript

David Duke Interviews Dr Andrew Joyce — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio: Dr Andrew Joyce – The History of Jewish Influence — TRANSCRIPT (Part 1)

Red Ice Radio: Dr Andrew Joyce – The History of Jewish Influence — TRANSCRIPT (Part 2)

TOO – Andrew Joyce’s Podcast – Talmud and Taboo — Part 01 – Jun 30, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce’s Podcast – T & T No. 1 – The Skype Directory — Jul 15, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T No 2 – And then one day… – Jul 20, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T No 3 – Kicking Over the Bucket – Jul 27, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T 4 – The Man Who Put the Jews on Trial – Aug 3, 2020

Andrew Joyce – T&T 5 – The Return of the Bucket – Aug 5, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T 6 – The Antisemite’s Handbook – Aug 11, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T 7 – The TOO Takedown – Aug 14, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T 8 – SEMITISM – Aug 28, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – Trumpism, Bidenism, and the System – Nov 9, 2020 — Transcript

Guide to Kulchur – The Protocols of the Elders of Zion – Andrew Joyce – Nov 22, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – BLM – Irish Edition – Dec 31, 2020 – Transcript

Horus – Discussing the ‘Russian Pogroms’ with Andrew Joyce – Jan 20, 2021 — Transcript

Guide to Kulchur – The Merchant of Venice – Abusive Victim-Identity Syndrome – Andrew Joyce – Jan 20, 2021 — Transcript

Barbara Lerner Spectre

============================================

xx UNFINISHED TRANSCRIPTS — Volunteers Needed

============================================

PDF Notes

• Total words = 3,055
• Total images = 13
• Total A4 pages = xx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):
(Available later)

Version History

Version 13: Mar 21, 2021 — Added See Also Part 3 image and links.

Version 12: Mar 15, 2021 — Added a link to Normie’s Guide. Added request to readers note. Added See Also Part 3 image and 2 links.

Version 11: Oct 19, 2020 — Added a link to download audio file (under the Audio player) per Bob’s request (See Comments). Ver 12: Nov 15, 2020 — Updated See Also links.

Version 10: Sep 20, 2020 — Updated See Also links (11) and image.

Version 9: Aug 5, 2020 — Updated See Also image (7) and links.

Version 8: Jul 28, 2020 — Added new See Also image and links.

Version 7: Jul 27, 2020 — Added new See Also image and links.

Version 6: Jul 22, 2020 — Added See Also link to “T & T No. 2 And Then One Day, …“.

Version 5: Jul 9, 2020 — Updated Cover.

Version 4: Jul 4, 2020 — Added “Transcripts Matter Project” message. Added 2 images (Anglin).

Version 3: Jul 3, 2020 — Added note that the audio has been taken down at Spreaker. Added 1 image. Added the audio file.

Version 2: Jul 2, 2020 — Improved formatting. Added 4 images.

Version 1: Jul 1, 2020 — Published post.

[Andrew Anglin of Daily Stormer fame, has a debate, or conversation, with Sargon of Akkad. hosted by Baked Alaska, with input from Andy Warski. Here are a selection of clips that YouTuber, Kronos, has posted — KATANA.]

Andrew Anglin

vs

Sargon of Akkad

Feb 2018 – Clips

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LZh6VzLhxU

TRANSCRIPTS

(Various mins)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ChhZMWmXQE

Andrew Anglin vs. Sargon of Akkad

Anglin: So I guess my question to start with for [00:02] Sargon, would be, do you grant the moral premise that White people have a right to their own country, and you’re just saying that it’s impossible to make that happen?

Sargon: Well I said at the beginning that I didn’t really want to debate the talking points, because there’s no point!

Anglin: Then what do you want to talk about Sargon?

Sargon: Let me explain.

Alaska: Wait hold on. You agree, you agreed to a debate. I mean, and then, you know.

Sargon: I really want to talk to Andrew.

Alaska: So you just show up at a debate and you don’t want to debate them?

Sargon: Not really. It seems I’m with, ..

Alaska: Why did you contact and send me an email, …

Sargon: Let me explain.

Alaska: Okay go ahead.

Sargon: I don’t know how to contact, sorry contact Andrew?

Alaska: We have been emailing back and forth.

Sargon: Yeah, because you were in contact with Andrew.

Alaska: I know, so if you didn’t want a debate, you should have emailed me, and said, “hey I don’t really want a debate [01:00] can we have a different sort of dialogue”. But go ahead.

Sargon: I don’t want to bicker or anything. So when you said debate I figured you mean “talk about things from different perspectives”.

Alaska: Okay! Go ahead and talk!

Anglin: That’s what we can do. I’m not trying to have an aggressive debate!

Sargon: Let me talk a second.

Anglin: I think it’s I think it’s a good starting point. What I just said, that you went straight to logistics and, .. Embrace race realism. And then the moral right of White people. So go ahead.

Sargon: Okay. Listen right. The problem that I have with anything that the Alt-Right says, when it comes to the concept of an ethno-state, is that it is trying to strip away the ethnic heritage that I have inherited. Do you understand that?

Anglin: What? I don’t understand that? No. Always, is it the thing that you’re a quadroon?

Sargon: No.

Anglin: That’s not true Sargon.

Sargon: It is absolutely true. My grandfather, ..

Anglin: I saw your parents in a videos [02:01] Sargon! In Baked Alaska stream, is that bullshit? Because I saw your parents! I saw your parents Sargon! There’s no way that’s true.

Sargon: I don’t care about your opinion on that! It really doesn’t matter to me.

Anglin: It’s not only an opinion. It’s an observation.

Sargon: Of course, it’s an opinion. Andrew, listen. I thought we’d be able to have an honest conversation. Because as far as I’m concerned, …

Anglin: Let’s get back to the quadroon question.

Sargon: Well let me speak. Look I’m not here to attack you, okay. As far as I’m concerned you are the only honest person in the entire alternative right. So I actually, of all of the people in the Alt-Right respect you the most! You are living the most honest version of your principles. And it is seeing you being, as Baked Alaska said, and I think rightfully so, the most persecuted and suppressed person in modern times. This is what you get for being honest!

Anglin: That is true.

Sargon: I don’t agree with [03:02] your principles. I don’t agree with the conception that you’re talking about. When I said my ethnic heritage, I mean, as an Englishman. If you think I’m giving up 800 years of fight against tyranny, from the point we are now, in an individualist state with civic nationalism. I as a citizen have control of my government. And if you think I’m giving that up for anything, you’re wrong! That is the English heritage! The idea that you think the I would give that away, …

Anglin: What about all these immigrants?

Sargon: I don’t even give a fuck about immigrants! All right? I’m never going to agree with that.

Anglin: What are they do with anything?

Sargon: Listen. I don’t, … Like I said, we’re not going to agree on this. You guys are okay with getting rid of that. I’m not!

Anglin: Getting rid of what?

Sargon: Civic nationalism!

Anglin: Like rights? I mean, I read, …

Sargon: Yes like rights.

Anglin: I don’t want to take anybody’s rights [04:01] away, Sargon.

Sargon: Of course, you do.

Anglin: Sargon! Sargon!

Sargon: On your website you’ve got “race war and the jewish problem”! Come on! Don’t lie to me! Don’t pretend!

Anglin: Okay, I am not lying. Let me say my thing, Sargon. I am an American nationalist. I believe in the principles of the United States Constitution.

And this country, my country. I’m not there right now. But the United States, as it was formed, okay, which was as a White nationalist country. Our entire history, the writings of Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers. This was a White nationalist country. We had laws enforcing White Nationalism in the United States of America.

That’s what I believe in! Okay? Anything else about, you know, civic ideals, this is all peripheral. What I believe in is the right of White people to have self-determination. [05:00] that is the core ideal here. And anything else is just at the side of that. It’s not primary.

Sargon: Okay. Well this is again where I disagree with you. But I’m not interested in discussing the ins and outs. I really just want to like talk to you and understand you. Because, …

Anglin: That’s, that’s the core of it. That’s what needs to be talked about. Stuff to do with time. And so on. I mean, …

Sargon: No no. Let me explain.

Alaska: No. First you said you don’t want to debate! Now you don’t want to discuss! I mean, …

Anglin: I’m going to ask you a bunch of questions!

Alaska: You have I mean, you’re getting paid eight thousand dollars a month on Patreon for you to represent your fans, your people’s ideas.

Sargon: No, that is not true.

Alaska: You need to represent, … You’re not getting paid $8,000 on Patreon?

Sargon: No, just the reason that you’re giving.

Alaska: I can pull up, …

Sargon: I’m getting paid by people in Patreon, because [06:01] I produce videos that they like to watch.

Alaska: Okay so you’re not, …

Sargon: I’m not being paid to be here.

Alaska: You don’t talk in your videos about. “I want to have a conversation!” I mean, I hear that all the time from you. But seems like you don’t want.

Sargon: I would love to have a conversation now. If you guys would stop being so defensive.

Sargon of Akkad is Genuinely

Disappointed in

Andrew Anglin

and Taze A Bro Nationalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ChhZMWmXQE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ChhZMWmXQE

Sargon: I honestly. This, I’m genuinely [00:02] disappointed Andrew.

Andrew: Yeah I know. You want me to say some crazy shit so you can play it like that.

Sargon: No. You put shit every day on your website.

Anglin: Yeah but it’s, you know, it’s tongue-in-cheek. It’s joking.

Sargon: Is it? Look I have to say the mainstream doesn’t think it’s tongue-in-cheek. And I honestly thought.

Alaska: Are you really giving the mainstream media credit for getting anything right Sargon?

Sargon: Some things. Not everything obviously.

Anglin: Okay, so if we’re gonna do logistics okay?

Sargon: We’re not doing logistics we’re talking about the moral principles.

Anglin: What we’re talking about is logistics. Morality is logistics.

Sargon: Is it right Andrew, Andrew listen. Is it right for the government to shoot lawful property owners?

Anglin: Okay we’re not gonna shoot anybody.

Sargon: Yeah you are. This is why, …

Anglin: We can taze them. [laughing] most of these people who don’t even own a property. They live [01:01] in Section eight housing.

Alaska: Don’t taze me bro!

Anglin: We’re going to taze these bros! Nationalism now! Can use knockout gas, you know. I mean, we guns that shoot tranquilizer darts.

Sargon: It doesn’t change the morality. Yeah we’re gonna protect your rights and come to our country and then buy property., you know, become citizens, and then we’re gonna take that away. Is the moral?

Anglin: You would accept, … Is that moral? You know, what is immoral is having our right to exist taken away from us. Okay? You are not answering my question. It’s breaking it down.

Sargon: Is it moral to have a government do that?

Edgy Book Recommendations.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CQc4eQ4RQk

[00:00]

Sargon: Listen, every person has a right to exist.

Anglin: Sargon have you even read Heidegger? [Alaska bursts out laughing]

Sargon: No, I haven’t. And he said that every person hasn’t gotta right to exist?

Anglin: Well, what he said is that human existence has a deeper meaning than this mathematical equation that you’ve presented as the as the meaning of existence. That we should base our morality off of a mathematical equation as to who is going to suffer. And I think that that’s using an underlying philosophical difference.

Alaska: Have you even read Siege, Sargon? Have you read Siege?

Sargon: Would you mind not interrupting? Huh?

Alaska: Have you read Siege?

Sargon: Do you mind not interrupting? Is that okay? Yeah? I’m trying to have a conversation with Andrew.

Alaska: All right.

Sargon Clashes With Baked Alaska

and Andy Warski

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QRMX9CXc48

[00:00]

Sargon: This is German bullshit! And the Germans can get fucked! Okay?

Anglin: So you sounds like you hate German there Sargon? You telling us they’re White niggers Sargon?

Sargon: It’s way worse!

Alaska: And, by the way, Sargon, …

Sargon: Honestly you guys need to get woke on the German question.

Alaska: Sargon you are on my channel. You should show some respect buddy. If I was on your channel I would give you respect. All right? So you’re on my show.

Sargon: Weren’t you just laughing and interrupting me a second ago?

Alaska: I’m the moderator. I can do whatever I want. It’s my show.

Sargon: Which means you shouldn’t do that. You should, …

Alaska: No I can do it. I can do my show however I want.

Sargon: It’s not showing is it?

Alaska: I can do it however I want.

Sargon: Is that not showing respect?

Alaska: I’m showing you respect. If something is funny I’m gonna laugh at it. People in the chat are actually saying moderate more. But I’m letting you guys have a conversation.

Sargon: I think that you should try and enforce your own rules. But I think, …

Alaska: I think you should stop dodging debates.

Sargon: I’m not dodging any debates.

Alaska: Like you dodged the Andy Warski debate. Yeah you almost dropped out of mine. You showed up 30 minutes late.

Sargon: I didn’t almost, ..

Alaska: And then you’re gonna, yeah you did drop out of Andy Warski’s debate. And then, …

Sargon: No! When did we arrange a debate? When did we arrange a debate?

Alaska: So you stopped doing a debate with Warski?

Sargon: Well no. Tell me when I arranged a debate from?

Alaska: I mean, he literally showed the screen shot on the Kumite. You believe in your ideas enough so you have to keep dodging questions. Dodging debates, …

Sargon: I’m not dodging anything.

Alaska: You are!

Sargon: No, no, listen, listen!

Alaska: You said I’m not having a debate I’m having a conversation. To you said I’m not gonna have a discussion about this. Sargon! You are a laughing stock of the internet right now!

Sargon: Because I don’t.

Alaska: You are intellectually dishonest! It’s not the Alt-Right. It’s the whole internet. I was a big fan of you Sargon! I was a big fan of you!

Sargon: I didn’t change anything.

Alaska: You need to get off your high horse Sargon! I want you to succeed!

Sargon: You are not listening to [02:01] anything that I’m saying. You don’t understand what I’m trying to put forward to you.

Alaska: Stop having this smug attitude about everything. We want to like you! We want to, …

Sargon: I don’t really, I don’t care if you like me, or not.

Alaska: I’m not talking about me, I’m speaking for the entire internet. This is what the entire internet, ..

Sargon: Are you sure that you are the voice of the entire internet?

Alaska: I am the voice of the Internet!

Sargon: I never arranged anything with Andy Warski. I never arranged, …

Alaska: I literally, Andy okay, …

Sargon: Look I know I know that you think I did. I will send you my correspondence with Andy. I don’t know why he’s lied about it.

Alaska: No Andy showed his email with you and you said “sure. We’ll do it soon”. You confirmed that you were doing a debate with him.

Sargon: Soon! But there is no time. There is no date. I haven’t set anything.

Alaska: But wait, so first you said you did not set up a debate with him, now now you did?

Sargon: No. That’s you just said I didn’t set up a [03:00] debate, because I didn’t give a time and a date.

Alaska: But you agreed to a debate and now you’re now you’re dodging it.

Sargon: When it suits my time frame, I’m happy to have a conversation.

Alaska: When it suits your time.

Sargon: Absolutely!

Alaska: But you wanna have a conversation with anyone except, … you don’t want to talk about this topic, or that topic. You don’t want to have a debate, even though you’re at this, you know, the head of the liberalism.

Sargon: I didn’t think there’d be any need to have a debate with Andrew, but we’ve gone through it all. I think there was, …

Alaska: Why would there be no need to have a debate when I set up a fucking debate with you? That’s, you’re literally sounding insane!

Sargon: If I get to talk to one of my arch-nemesis for the past four, …

Alaska: But you’re not talking to him dude!

Sargon: Because you’re talking.

Alaska: Okay, well here’s Sargon talking to. Well here’s Warski to address these issues.

Warski: I did say multiple times that you’re gonna do it. And I have these side chats that I screen shared yesterday on the Kumite, saying, yes I could screen share it right now.

Sargon: I think you should [04:01] cuz I said “soon” didn’t I?

Warski: Yeah you said “fairly soon” which means you did say that you would do the debate!

Sargon: Yeah.

Warski: All right. Yeah.

Sargon: Yeah.

Warski: That’s my point.

Sargon: When? When? That was ten days ago Andy.

Warski: Yeah! But the thing is Vee and a bunch of people kept saying you wanted a round two, so I was trying to I was trying to plan it.

Sargon: [Garbled.]

Warski: Hang on! Sargon! Jesus Christ do you let anyone finish a fucking sentence?

Sargon: Oh get fucked man! Everyone has been interrupting me constantly.

Alaska: Oh come on!

Sargon: And then.

Warski: You can’t say about, … bullshit, ….

Alaska: Let me suck you don’t let anybody speak and then you accuse everyone else of interrupting you.

Sargon: Unbelievable! It’s unbelievable!

Warski: Whiny fuck man!

Sargon: You’re whining at me that I’m not doing the debate soon enough? And you call me a whiny fuck!

Warski: No! No! Okay, first of all,

Sargon: Yes yes Andy, come on.

Warski: You can all get fucked! [screaming] do you let anyone finish the [05:02] fucking sentence! ?

Sargon: Oh welcome to my world my friend. Carry on.

Warski: You’ve been interrupting Andrew the entire time. You were supposed to be here to debate, and you start off with “I don’t want to have a debate. I just want to have a conversation”. Who the fuck is coming here to watch a conversation? Agree to a conversation we want to hear a fucking debate.

Sargon: Do you think a lot of, …

I would be interested in a real debate?

Alaska: You didn’t agree to a conversation! You agreed to a debate. So Andrew has already won by default, by you dodging, …

Sargon: Great victory! Enjoy it!

Warski: My point is you’ve lost this debate.

Sargon: You can’t understand the terms I’m using man. I’m trying to explain, I’ve explained to you in explicit detail.

Anglin: Do I have a case of Dunning Kruger here’s Sargon?

Sargon: Yes, yes, I’m the one with the case of Dunning Kruger.

Anglin: I you might think you’re smarter than you are!

Sargon: Yes I’m sure you are as exactly as smart as you think you are as well.

Warski: You said that you wanted to debate, Sargon over and over again [06:02] soon! Soon! Soon! And then you go on your White White nigger rants! I’ve done with debating the alternative-right! If you think the Alt-Right is so wrong about their principles and ideas, then fucking man up and debate! How are you the leader of the liberalists when you can’t even debate Vee? In my opinion V should be the fucking leader! Because he has the balls!

Sargon: Shall we give him the crown?

Warski: Yes!

Alaska: Yes!

Anglin: Do it!

Sargon: Vee, the king of the liberalists! Good on you!

Alaska: Whoa!

Sargon: Now what!

Anglin: I don’t know. It’s your thing. I guess we’ll have to ask Vee? We’ll have to ask Vee!

Warski: My point is you don’t want to debate anyone! Never debate anyone.

Sargon: Can I, … Andy, right? Shut up! , you know, that’s bollocks!

Warski: I literally see you saying that you wanted to debate him. And now you’re like I never promised! You said “I never promised him that”. And then you were like “okay I did. But I said soon”

Sargon: I never said “I promise you” me saying I will have a talk with you “soon” is not a problem.

Warski: Alt-Right I’m going to open up the Skype right now.

Sargon: No one cares man!

Warski: Let’s open it up right now.

Sargon: Oh my god! Andy I don’t care!

Warski: I can prove it! You’re lying right now. Therefore I will have to prove it.

Sargon: I’m lying! [sarc]

Warski: There we going. I have to make sure I don’t reveal any private Skype. Okay share screen. Here it is. Okay look look at this. Ah where is it. “yo Sargon, people are asking when you’re down for this Spencer rematch” “fairly soon man. I’ve been busy”. This clearly indicates that you were down to [08:00] have the debate, plus he mentioned it to be a bunch of times, and be messaging me saying you wanted me to help, me to set up the debate. So you coming on here and saying you never promised it, is bullshit! Sargon!

Sargon: That is not a promise.

Anglin: Sargon, the reason you wanted to debate me, because you thought I was gonna come on here and say I was gonna kill a bunch of people.

Sargon: You’ve already said that Andrew.

Anglin: [shouting] I have not said I’m going to to kill a bunch of people, Sargon! You thought I was going to say something crazy.

Sargon: [garbled]

Anglin: Everything necessitates violence! They put guns at the backs of little kids to integrate them with the blacks!

Sargon: Then stop being a fucking pussy and say your solution needs violence.

Anglin: Sargon that is not a good “gotcha” I’ve said.

Sargon: I didn’t say it was a “gotcha!”

Anglin: It requires force, the violence, the violence, ..

Sargon: Andrew right, as far as I’m concerned you are a Nazi! There’s no point trying to xx. On a Nazi. Now I’m actually impressed that you actually pretend not to be a Nazi. I [09:00] never thought that you would ever say that.

Anglin: I do not pretend not to be a Nazi, or to be a Nazi! I don’t know what that means! Okay? I do not know what that means when you use that term “Nazi”

Sargon: Okay.

Anglin: It’s a slur!

Sargon: Can I just quickly finish answering Andy then I’ll, …

Anglin: We’re in a debate about debating. [laughing]

Sargon: It is pretty ridiculous. But look it’s a slur when the far-left use the term “Nazi”, because A) they don’t know anything about Nazis, and they don’t know anything about the person they’re talking about. And they think it’s a way of just dismissing them as a bad person. Right? It’s not a slur when you can actually refer to the points of principle under which Nazis self-identified.

Anglin: But you’re just talking about White Nationalism, which goes back to the entire history of Europe. I mean, when they kept these people out of here.

Sargon: I’m not just  talking to them.

Anglin: Were the founding fathers Nazis?

Sargon: Okay, listen. There’s a reason why we are not White nationalist now. But anyway, Andy, right? I’m sorry that you thought I was [10:00] promising something to you. And I’m sorry that I’ve not done whatever it is you want, soon enough. But I have been busy, and I said “soon” ten days ago. And in my world ten days is not that long a time.

Warski: I have one question. Do you want to debate Spencer again, or not?

Sargon: Honestly I don’t mind. I’m happy to do it at some point. But it’s not like top of my list of priorities.

Warski: And you had messaged me, …

Sargon: Debating Anglin is far higher, because I personally can engage, …

Alaska: Wait! Wait! Wait! Debating Anglin it’s far higher on your priorities, but you literally came on, …

Sargon: Oh my god! Baked Alaska, look it’s a semantic point you bring up here. It it’s not really anything important, is it?

Alaska: I think everyone can see through you, …

Anglin: It like your “logistics”. Is it logistics Sargon? Were you having logistic problems arranging the debate? With your, …

Sargon: Yeah we were actually., because I thought you started nine o’clock. But apparently I got the time wrong [11:00] So yeah, ..

Alaska: I emailed you the correct time.

Anglin: Everything is logistics! The logistics man! [laughing]

Sargon: No, I’m happy to say that was my mistake. If that’s okay? Do you mind if I do? [patronizing apology tone] I’m happy to say I made the mistake of arriving half an hour late. It’s my mistake.

Alaska: That’s fine. But then you said that, …

Sargon: Can I explain what I was saying?

Alaska: Sure.

Sargon: I consider Andrew to have a much higher standing than Richard Spencer! Andrew actually has grassroots support! He actually has a base. He’s built a platform. And actually managed to make himself the target of literally every fucking person in the world! He’s actually got supporters. He gets money from them. They believe in what he’s doing, or at least, I guess, they believe in what you’re pretending to be doing.

Anglin: I’m not pretending to do anything Sargon.

Sargon: But the point is Richard Spencer, as far as I can tell, is like the Hillary Clinton of the Alt-Right [12:00]. He’s the sort of person who, I mean, who here would actually willingly go and talk to the mainstream media?

Anglin: Richard Spencer.

Sargon: Exactly. Why would he do that?

Anglin: I don’t know yeah.

Sargon: Exactly! Nobody knows. It’s weird. It’s like he’s whoring himself out, or something. In this week I received an invite from a Dutch documentary team in the BBC, to appear on their shows. And I haven’t accepted, obviously, because I don’t trust them! And I don’t need to trust them. But Richard Spencer does! He would slap it up in a heart-beat. And now they’ve stopped talking to him, he’s come to the YouTubers. This is what I mean. He’s not high on my list of priorities. And “ethane states in space”? Is there anyone here who thinks that Richard Spencer’s plans are ever gonna come to fruition?

Warski: Not me.

Sargon: He’s not high on my list of, … okay?

Warski: Right, fair enough then.

Anglin: That was a groundbreaking debate that you had. That’s why people liked it. Sargon. It was entertaining.

Sargon: Not really! Oh, that is true.

Alaska: It was number one trending. It was good content.

Warski: So you don’t want a debate him?

Sargon: One thing about it, is we got to find out exactly what Richard actually believed. And his beliefs are so fringe, not even most of the Alt-Right believe him.

Anglin: But to you straw manned him Sargon! With a bunch of stupid shit about that he wanted feudalism, and that he was gonna hurt people with violence okay?

Sargon: Didn’t he advocate for a warrior aristocracy?

Anglin: The state requires violence okay? Spencer, you attacked him for saying the state is violent. Every policy of the state requires violence! Politics are the movement of violence, physical force, or threat of it.

Sargon: I didn’t, or at least if I did say that to I’ll take it back.

Anglin: So you’re saying you keep talking about this violence! But every everything is violence, as far as the state policy. All of it is enforced by the threat, the theoretical threat of [14:00] violence! If you start smoking in a hospital then there is the threat of violence. There’s a rule against that. So you’re saying you’re saying this, or cannot be any laws with your thing that, …

Sargon: Andrew you’re not representing my views correctly here.

Anglin: Okay then give us your views of how you can have policies without violence?

Sargon: Now I don’t think that you can have anything without violence. I think that the state has the monopoly on violence. And the purpose of the state is to protect the property rights of the individuals, beginning with the property of themselves.

Anglin: Of the state?

Sargon: What?

Anglin: The property of the state itself?

Sargon: No, no, no! The property of the people, the individuals. The citizens. That’s what civic nationalism is.

Anglin: Okay, but this return, continued return, to this idea that if you remove these people it would have to have violence. Well that’s the same theory if you said there’s no smoking in the hospital, you can’t make that rule, because people are [15:00] gonna smoke and then you’re gonna have to shoot them!

Sargon: Yeah, but that is not my primary objection. That’s not my primary objection.

Anglin: Your primary objection was the logistics of it!

Sargon: No.

Anglin: You said it’s impossible.

Sargon: No. I keep telling you that’s not the case, but you won’t, …

Anglin: You’re moving the goal-posts here. [sound was cut]

Alaska: Hello?

Warski: I’m here.

Anglin: Yeah I’m here.

Alaska: We’re losing Sargon.

Warski: Your internet is cutting out Sargon. Alright I’ll, …

Sargon: Can you hear me?

Warski: Baked Alaska invite me back later. I’ll jump out I’m gonna talk it up — he doesn’t want to do the debate with, …

Sargon: Can you guys hear me?

Alaska: Yeah we can hear you. [16:00]

Warski: I have Vee and this angel guy, or whatever I’m round to debate him. I don’t want people to be just waiting there with her flaccid dicks in their hand. You do what you have to do, and I’ll see you.

Sargon: Don’t arrange a date for something I didn’t agree a date on, …

Warski: I didn’t have a date. I just, …

Sargon: Well, why are they holding their flaccid dicks?

Warski: Because it seems like you’re being cowardly. If you think Richard Spencer is that much of a low cow, you should be able to defeat him pretty easily, without any preparation.

Sargon: I don’t think that he has won any debate. Do you understand? Saying he wants a “warrior aristocracy in space” is pretty bloody ridiculous!

Anglin: Your straw-manning Sargon.

Sargon: That’s not a straw-man. He literally advocated the balkanization of the US. A return to an aristocracy?

Anglin: For all our purposes, all of our purposes is to create a block of people defending the rights of White people in our own countries!

Sargon VS Anglin on Liberalist

Plan and Alt Right Influence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ig4X0bzhqsk

[00:00]

Sargon: Stop interrupting and I’ll explain to you my plan right. Basically I think that with a sort of form of cultural imperialism, as in being proud of the native cultures that we have, and emphasizing these above above other cultures, this will act as a kind of soft power. This will kind this will be a natural buffer against people who would like to come here and set up ethnic enclaves. Like, for example, in Rotherham, in you know, Bradford, where all these other countries. If they want to live with Sharia law, that’s too bad. I want Sharia Courts banned in my country. Do you understand?

I want that to happen. I don’t want to abandon individual rights, but I don’t want a separate parallel legal system set up. And I think it’s completely within the state’s right to prevent that as well. The state is the arbiter of justice. But I don’t want to just undermine my own civic fucking power over my state. I’m not throwing away civic nationalism! It’s a ridiculous thing to say! Right? But the and this means we can’t do certain things., because if we start allowing the state to violate other people’s rights.

[01:02]

Then inevitably it’s gonna get round to my rights, because I’m a fucking dissident! Okay? I’m in very in many ways a lot like you Andrew. I also oppose what’s going on. It’s just I have a different perspective. This is I think something that will happen over time, but I think it will be effective and it won’t necessitate the violation of anyone’s rights. And at the end of the day if they all want to kind of like convert and act British, be British, if you know, if you guys think they’re genetically possible. Then I don’t really have a problem with them staying., because like we’ve seen Muslim birth rates reduce in this country, because it’s just it’s a consequence of wealth! If you get wealthy, you want less kids. It’s just, because you’ve got the option I guess. But this is a point. If you guys misrepresent me constantly and you do. If you guys deliberately not understand what I’m saying which I think you do.

[02:01]

Anglin: I’m not and you said you promote culture in it, that’s going, that’s the solution?

Sargon: Yeah.

Anglin: To this situation?

Sargon: Shutting borders and promoting some kind of culture, …

Anglin: By these animals.

Sargon: Yes! yes, exactly!

Anglin: We’re shit holing it here!

Sargon: Yeah, I think we should stop these people coming to our country. I’m not pro Congolese immigration! Unlike the UN delegate.

Alaska: All right, so I’m getting this in the chat. Someone said Sargon never gave us his solution. He mentioned cultural Imperium and then digressed without explaining his solution.

Sargon: Well I’ve just explained it and the thing is I don’t want to explain one more time.

Alaska: Break that down! Break that down!

Sargon: I literally just did. I just the did. I just the explained it to you.

Anglin: No you didn’t!

Sargon: I did Andrew!

Anglin: It will just go away? It will just disappear, all these behavior patterns will just disappear? If you just, I mean, look, …

[03:02]

Sargon: They will leave of their own accord when they find this country is not to their liking Andrew.

Alaska: Make sure to get all your questions in too., because also apparently Vee told us that this is Sargon’s last Alt-Right interview.

Sargon: I told you that!

Alaska: So are you, …

Anglin: Vee as your ambassador, …

Sargon: No! I said that myself!

Anglin: Why? Why is it?

Alaska: Are you accepting, …

Sargon: I don’t, … you want to consider me as a defeat, I’m happy. No, no, honestly, I want you to think that I’m accepting defeat.

Alaska: Okay!

Sargon: Okay? We good?

Alaska: But I want to, … I don’t care what you want me to think. I want to actually know your, …

Anglin: We want an official surrender here!

Sargon: Yeah.

Alaska: You’re going to try to argue that the Alt-Right has no influence on culture. I mean, that’s obviously not true. So either you are, …

Sargon: I don’t see how you you, … what are you influencing?

[04:02]

Alaska: Are you kidding me dude?

Sargon: What are you influencing? Seriously. Go!

Alaska: I mean, you’re part, you’ve seen it having the number one stream on YouTube.

Sargon: Oh right,

Anglin: It’s pretty obvious.

Sargon: So that’s the Alt-Right is it?

Alaska: Right, yeah, that’s what people are interested, …

Anglin: It’s happening in real life.

Sargon: Would that have happened if I was xxx, …

Anglin: Taking over youth culture.

Sargon: Is it?

Alaska: Right.

Anglin: It is in America, yes. We hear these, …

Alaska: Have you not seen 4chan? Have you not seen what people are talking about?

Anglin: We had a poll last year. We have 10%! We have 10% support of the Alt-Right in the United States. 10% of the people, …

Sargon: Might be your own confirmation bias though?

Anglin: Well, I mean, it’s a poll.

Sargon: It was a poll done by far lefties, who want there to be a significant Nazi threat in the US.

Anglin: I think it was, so I mean, it’s you know, I guess, …

Sargon: I looked at it the other day. I mean, like it was done immediately in Charlottesville. And it was nebulous! I don’t think the public know what the Alt-right is.

[05:02]

Anglin: So there’s gonna be a lower rating after Charlottesville, I think.

Sargon: Tell me what your influence is.

Anglin: I just said, we’re influencing the culture. These memes are popping up in our media and these are spreading throughout the culture. White people are waking up and developing a consciousness, a racial consciousness and a belief that they have a right to exist as a people! That is the goal! It’s to put a consciousness in the minds of the collective White population, in all of our countries that are being invaded.

I mean, they already have this in Eastern Europe, but in the countries that are being invaded, we want to create a consciousness of being White! So that people will begin to organize and act in their own interests! And that is happening! We are affecting the way that masses of people are thinking and everything is going, … I mean, look look at Donald Trump as a phenomenon. This is a White racial phenomenon! It’s a White racial phenomenon!

Sargon: I don’t agree.

[06:02]

============================================

PDF Notes

* Total words = xxx

* Total images = xx

* Total A4 pages = xx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

Version History

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2: Feb 12, 2018 — Added fifth clip — “Sargon VS Anglin on Liberalist Plan and Alt Right Influence“. Improved formatting.

Version 1: Feb 11, 2018  — Published post.

[John Friend and Carolyn Yeager discuss the recent Greg Johnson vs Andrew Anglin “debate” where the “Holocaust” and Revisionism were some of the topics discussed.

John and Carolyn then take Kevin MacDonald and Greggy to the woodshed for their failure to man-up and confront the fraudulent nature of the “holocaust industry” that the jews have placed, like a millstone, around the necks of Whites.

The Revisionists have systematically and conclusively proven that the “Holocaust” is the “hoax of the 20th century“. What stands in the way of this becoming general public knowledge is organized jewry’s stranglehold over our governments and media, etc.

Between this proven hoax and the public’s  lack of awareness stand two prominent members of the White movement, who for reasons explored by Carolyn and John, make excuses for evading this fact, or worst, pretend with word play that it still “happened“.

As Carolyn and John discuss, the fraudulent “Holocaust” is central to organized jewry’s strategy of guilt tripping Whites to prevent them into moving towards White nationalism by linking it negatively to racial awareness, that then leads to “Nazism” and the inevitable “gassing of six million innocent jews“.

As such, it is essential that the White movement comes to grips with exposing the Holohoax for what it is, so that this massive psychological weapon, roadblock, can be neutralized.

Meanwhile the jews continue on with their genocidal plans to destroy the White race — KATANA.]

_______________________

The Realist Report

Carolyn Yeager

On the Johnson vs Anglin Debate

Click the link below to John’s blog post:

The Realist Report – Carolyn Yeager

Click the link below to listen the audio:

http://therealistreport.com/?powerpress_pinw=4424-podcast

Or for a tidied up version of the audio, from Carolyn:

https://carolynyeager.net/system/files/Friend-Yeager_greggy_9-6-17.mp3

The realist Report Description

Published on Sep 6, 2017

On this edition of The Realist Report, we’re joined once again by Carolyn Yeager. Carolyn and I focus on the recent debate between Andrew Anglin and Greg Johnson which focused on the importance and relevance of historical revisionism in the overall pro-White struggle. Carolyn and I both agree that revisionism is an essential aspect of the struggle for the White race, as our historical narrative – especially as it pertains to WWII, Adolf Hitler, and the so-called “Holocaust” of “6 million Jews” – has been entirely weaponized against our people. We also address a number of other related issues in this very important podcast.

Below are relevant links for this program:

• Greg Johnson echos Kevin MacDonald in opposing ‘Holocaust revisionism’ – One must ask why – Carolyn Yeager
• Andrew Anglin And Greg Johnson Discuss The Alt Right
• My Conversation with Andrew Anglin – Greg Johnson
• Why the Holocaust Story Was Invented – John Wear
• Top Jewish leader claims entire Western world culpable for “Holocaust” – John Friend

Subscribe to The Realist Report today, and support independent media!

Did you enjoy this program? Consider donating to The Realist Report to help us continue producing podcasts. Enter your email below and donate $10 now!

__________________________

TRANSCRIPT

(80:11 mins)

[00:38]

Voice over: You are listening to The Realist Report. And now your host, John Friend!

John: All right folks, welcome back to another edition of The Realist Report. This is your host John Friend. The website is The Realist Report dot com, where you can find an extensive archive of these pod casts as well as other radio broadcasts I have participated in, in the past. You can also find all of my blog posts and articles, a contact page, my Twitter feed, which is embedded on the right hand side of the website, and many other useful and important links. I am a regular reporter for American Free Press, America’s last real newspaper, and I also contribute to The Barnes Review, the bi-monthly history magazine affiliated with American Free Press. I encourage everyone listening to subscribe to both publications. Check out American Free Press dot net and The Barnes Review dot org for more details.

OK, with that said, let me introduce my special guest this evening. Carolyn Yeager is back once again to discuss a recent debate between Andrew Anglin and Greg Johnson. Which focuses on the importance and relevance of historical Revisionism in the overall pro-White struggle. A topic Carolyn and I have addressed in the past.

Carolyn, welcome back to the program! How are you this evening?

Carolyn: I’m just fine, John. Glad to be here.

John: Yes, good! I’m glad that you could join me. You wrote an article about this debate between Greg Johnson and Andrew Anglin which is over on Carolyn Yeager dot net. And I will link to it. I hope people go there and check it out. I think you have a lot of very important and good things to say about the debate. And really that’s going to be the main topic for this conversation. I will be honest, I did not listen to the entire debate. I think if you can find it on YouTube and you can also find it on, … There’s like a new alternative to YouTube from what I understand. I think it’s Bitchute, is that correct?

Carolyn: Yes.

John: Yes. You can find it [the debate] in multiple places. You have it linked on a couple of different, …

Carolyn: Yes. I have both of them linked.

John: Yes, over on your site. If you just Google it, you can find it. It’s been all over the place. It is a pretty interesting debate. Certainly worth checking out. Again I didn’t listen to the entire thing. I listened to most of it, and I mean, frankly I’ve basically heard what both Anglin and Johnson have to say about the subject, so it really wasn’t anything, …

[Image] The many faces of Andrew Anglin.

Carolyn: And then Anglin said, afterwards, that it wasn’t supposed to be a debate, but then afterwards they started calling it a debate. But I guess that was important to him, that he didn’t feel like he was in debate. You know, he wasn’t prepared, maybe, to debate anything. You know, but they did have interestingly pretty much opposing views when it came to “Holocaust” and revisionism, which is the part that I found interesting.

John: Right. Now there was a another debate that preceded the Anglin and Johnson debate, and that was between Greg Johnson and Vox Day. And they did a debate, and it was hosted by Terry McCarthy, who also hosted the debate between Anglin and Johnson.

[Image] Vox Day vs Greg Johnson debate.

In the Johnson and Vox Day debate, was a few weeks ago, I want to say, shortly after Charlottesville. And they were kind of addressing similar topics. They were talking about National Socialists and Nazis. How important, or relevant they are, like in the pro-White, Alt-Right movement, or whatever. And I’d listened to that too, again I didn’t listen to the entire thing, but I thought that was kind of interesting. Again, I’ve heard the arguments made by Johnson and Fox Day. So again, it wasn’t really anything, …

Carolyn: I had not before. It was sort of focused on Socialism in that debate, National Socialism and what Socialism meant, how to interpret it and so on.

And I listened to it, because you mentioned it to me. But I didn’t think much of it.

[05:14]

John: Yeah, you know, I really didn’t either. And even the Anglin and Johnson debate, I really wasn’t that impressed with either of them. So I mean, I agreed more with Anglin, but I think I would basically just present the information and present my perspective much differently than even Anglin would. I would explain it much differently and make different points than he would, than he did in this debate. Although I think he did OK. But I think I would have just handled it much differently.

So, I think overall, I would agree with Anglin.

Carolyn: The reason they had that, … According to Anglin, and it is true, was that Anglin complained that Greg Johnson had misrepresented him in the Johnson Vox Day debate. And so he said: “Well, you come on and we’ll talk about that.” And so in a couple places that’s when Johnson asked Andrew:

“Well, how did I misrepresent you, Andrew?”

And Andrew told him. He was prepared to say that. He had a couple different things that he thought were important. But then I don’t think Anglin had thought he was prepared to debate the “Holocaust” and, or Adolf Hitler, or anything like that. So, that’s why he said what he did, because maybe he would have done a different job, if he had gone there intending to debate that.

John: Okay, I get you.

Carolyn: He said what he thought, you know, I thought he did okay. But you’re right, he didn’t have some things right.

John: Yeah, I think overall he did pretty good.

Carolyn: Yeah.

John: And again I would certainly agree with Anglin over Greg Johnson, for sure, when it comes to this issue. So with that being said, I just want to say really quickly about Greg Johnson, because I think you’re going to be much more critical of him, than I will be.

I’ve been listening to and reading Greg Johnson for a number of years. I have one of his books, and I’m forgetting the title, off the top of my head. “New Right versus Old Right” I think that’s the name of it.

[Image] New Right vs Old Right by Greg Johnson. Click image to enlarge.

Carolyn: Yeah.

John: And I think Greg Johnson is a very, very smart man. He’s very articulate. I think he makes a lot of good arguments. His book I thought was really good, although there are certain sections, that I totally disagreed with. Including the article where he talks about the “Holocaust”. And it was actually the article that was published originally on The Occidental Observer dot net. It was basically the same article he wrote for the website, that was also published in the book.

And that’s an article that I’m sure we’ll bring up and talk about here as we proceed. But the book overall, was very good. I learned a lot from it. I think he makes a very good case for, you know, pro-White interests over all.

Again, I think he’s very articulate, very intelligent. I mean, the man’s a Ph D. He’s obviously, very smart. I just totally disagree with him when it comes to Revisionism and the “Holocaust”.

So, I just want to say that. I think he’s very smart, I think he is an asset to the movement overall. I just disagree with him. Then, of course, there’s also this debate, whether, or not he’s gay. And I don’t know if he is, or not.

Carolyn: John! John! That’s a definite fact! I mean, he didn’t want to talk about it for a long time, tried to avoid it and not talk about it. But he never denied it!

John: Right.

Carolyn: And it was Alex Linder who was trying to get him to deny it. And he didn’t do it. He was always walking around it. So, he’s even prides himself in being able to, you know, swerve around and make his arguments and come out with what he thinks is a winning argument. No matter what. It’s not based really on that he’s got all the facts right, or the facts on his side, but he just thinks he knows how to argue. And he said that. So, I think that there’s no doubt about that. He doesn’t want to say so, but he doesn’t fight it.

John: Right. And, you know, honestly I think you’re probably right, but again it’s not something that I frankly care too much about. It is what it is.

Carolyn: Let me say that I don’t care too much about him. I could leave him alone, but I do care about, as you know, about Revisionism. And I care about World War Two history, and I care about National Socialism. And when I hear him saying the things he does, I can’t, and I don’t think we should, just say, well that’s his opinion, he can have his opinion.

Naturally, he can have his opinion. But, I wouldn’t just let it pass it by and say it doesn’t matter. He’s good on other things. I think it does matter, because, as I’m going to try to point out here, the things that he says about it are totally ridiculous! And wrong! And uneducated!

John: Sure. I agree.

Carolyn: He makes this “great” argument. He makes this argument that just flips around. But, it’s not based on facts, and therefore it shouldn’t be respected, I don’t think.

[10:50]

John: OK. Yeah I sort of agree with you, I mean, pretty much. Before we get into the main topic, let’s actually just address this right off the bat. This issue of Johnson being gay. Because I’ve heard you argue in the article you wrote that his homosexuality seems to influence his thinking in his pro-White stance, and everything. So, how influential is his homosexual sexual identity in all of this? Do you think it has a huge role in his overall perspective?

Carolyn: Yeah, well I’ve said so and, you know, I realized when I was writing this, that I was just being way out there with talking about him actually giving the reasons for his thinking as his homosexuality, over and over, again. I knew I was doing that, and I didn’t actually get criticized for it. You know, to my face. But I thought I would. But then I thought, this just hits me so hard in everything that he says, while I kept to the “Holocaust” Revisionism, for the most part, and somewhat with the Hitler stuff.

It just strikes me so strongly that, that is the reasoning behind it. And this is not brand new, because I’ve said these things before, but I haven’t talked about Greg Johnson for a long time. And I don’t think, in a sense it’s none of my business what Greg Johnson is doing. But when he comes out publicly with this stuff on this topic, I just feel like I got to answer this, and I’ve got to say something.

John: Yes.

Carolyn: And there are some people who appreciate it.

John: No, definitely! I mean, every time I hear him, or Dr Kevin MacDonald, again two individuals I’ve learned a lot from, I respect. I think they’re certainly on our side, overall, but I just totally disagree with this. And I think it is a very important point. In fact, as you know, I often argue when I’m doing pod-casts when I’m writing, that the fake “Holocaust” story is the entire bedrock of this New World Order! This anti-White, White genocide agenda, jewish agenda. This is the heart of it. This is what drives all. It’s the paradigm that really shapes this and advances it. And I mean, I just don’t see how we can avoid it, if we are to confront these problems, and deal with them seriously. I don’t think that we can. And we will get into that as we, …

Carolyn: Yeah, I know you believe that John. But you’re also a very nice person, but also you are committed to the movement. You don’t want to criticize people. And I’m criticized for going out and criticizing people who some people think shouldn’t be criticized, especially Kevin MacDonald. And, you know, a couple weeks before this Johnson Anglin discussion, I wrote something* about Kevin MacDonald, which was longer than this.

[* See Carolyn’s Aug 8, 2017 blog post: “Kevin MacDonald on record saying whether the Holocaust actually happened is ‘not important’“]

[Image] Kevin MacDonald (pic taken at the 2016 NPI conference) and his landmark book on jews, “The Culture of Critique“.

He did a radio program with that, “non jewish” jew, and a girl there asked him about the “Holocaust” and Hitler and stuff. So he answered. And I was so shocked! Just thought his answers are pretty terrible. And I wrote about him about two years ago on the same topic, because a radio program* he did.

[* See Carolyn’s Nov 16, 2015 blog post: “The Heretics’ Hour: Kevin MacDonald’s problem with Holocaust revisionism“]

So these two men, … Now, MacDonald I always respected so much and I would never have, … Well he never talked about it, that I knew of in the past. But he did on these two occasions, because he was asked! And these were both, maybe since he was retired, I don’t know if he was retired the first one, but probably. And I thought, well that’s pretty ignorant! That’s not right. And so I made a noise about it, and I’m good at doing that. [John laughs]

John: Yes, you are.

Carolyn: That’s my role, I guess. So I have those two, that kind of go together in my mind. So when this came up with Greg Johnson, I thought, well I’m going to write something about this, too. Just to be fair! [chuckling]

[15:28]

John: Yeah, and I think it’s totally legitimate to have these discussions and to publicly disagree with other thought leaders, in the Alt-Right, or whatever. I think that’s totally fine. I think that’s healthy, really, what we should be doing, rather than engaging in drama, or gossip, and all this other crap. If we’re going to criticize somebody, …

Carolyn: We’re just ignoring it. Mostly, people don’t want to criticize someone like Kevin MacDonald, even over his views on “Holocaust” revisionism. But, it was a big hit, a lot of conversation about it. A lot of comments, a good thread about it and so on.

John: Right.

Carolyn: Anyway, like you, that is my big thing. And I’ve decided even more, and more, that when it comes down to it, that’s my big thing! And so, I’m going to push it as much as I can. And I don’t have the reach those guys do, but I can certainly say what I think about the misleading things they’re saying about it.

John: Yes, exactly. So, let’s get right into it. What were your overall thoughts on the debate? What points would you make?

Carolyn: Johnson said:

“No honest revisionist claims that the “Holocaust” never happened.”

And then he says:

“Robert Faurisson claims that the “Holocaust” never happened. But only by insisting on a particular definition.”

Those are his words. He says:

“His argument is too clever by half and cannot be taken seriously.”

He kept repeating:

“We don’t have to rehabilitate the Third Reich.”

And he said:

“You can say that we are Nazis, or you can say, ‘No, we’re not Nazis’, or you can say, ‘Nazis are not evil’, but you can’t say, …”

I don’t know, whatever.

John: Well, his main argument seemed to be that the pro-White struggle and having a pro-White identity, and just the overall pro-White message is in no way related to what happened during World War Two.

Carolyn: Right. Right.

John: that was his main thing. And theoretically what he’s saying is true! I mean, the fact that White people deserve their own countries, that there’s this very blatant anti-White, agenda that’s being advanced on every single White country. We’re being forced with all this mass immigration, forced multiculturalism, forced integration, all this anti-White propaganda, etc.

This is wrong, and our cause is totally legitimate. And is in no way related to, or tied to World War Two. That’s correct in theory, but that’s not the way it works in the real world, right?

[19:47]

Carolyn: Yeah, and everybody is familiar with that. You know, that is just a bunch of baloney, saying that. That’s fine for us to say, but nobody pays attention to it, as you just said, in the real world. So he kept saying:

“Well we can made this wonderful argument, that this is absurd what people are saying.”

To say what they call White supremacists, or just White identists, or White activists, are Nazis. That’s just so absurd on it’s face. That’s silly. And that’s not a good argument. First of all we can just ignore that, and just go on and do our thing whatever.

He doesn’t really have an answer to it. His whole answer to all of it, is to ignore it, in what he called in his article he wrote quite a number of years ago, that caused such a stir. He was using that phrase, “To step over it”. So we just “step over” the “Holocaust” and go on our way. And say it doesn’t have anything to do with us.

John: Right. But there’s no way to. I mean, theoretically you could, if you’re talking about it again from a theoretical perspective, …

Carolyn: Andrew Anglin countered that on that show, by saying that if we say we agree with everything Hitler said and did, which he does, you know, basically expects that people are going to do. If we agree with what Hitler did, we can’t then say that we have nothing to do with him. And he says that nobody’s going to fall for that. Nobody’s going to go along with that.

And Greg is saying, well he wouldn’t say that. He didn’t say those words, but that then leads him to trying to dismiss, get us away from Adolf Hitler’s National Socialism, too. Which he disagrees with. And that’s part of what the “New Right” is about, right?

John: Yeah. And from what I remember about the book, his main critique of the “Old Right” is that it was kind of brutal, and violent, and tyrannical. And I think that’s a totally distorted view of National Socialism.

Carolyn: Well it is. See now, that’s where the homosexuality comes in. That absolutely comes in there. He doesn’t like, … He was much more friendly toward Hitler and National Socialism, but he’s moved away from that, because he sees, or decided, or whatever, that this is over quite a number of years, that this is a government that could treat his group badly. And so therefore he rejects anything to do with fascism, you know, what we call fascism, or the Third Reich. He rejects it.

[Image] Heinrich Himmler talks of the problem with homosexuals in society. See: Heinrich Himmler on Homosexuality.

And to me, it’s because he’s afraid of the brutality, he’s afraid of the harshness. He doesn’t think that he could convince them that he’s a good guy and that they should leave him and his friends alone.

John: It’s almost as if he knows that he would be sort of excluded in a National Socialist type state, because he is a homosexual. And that’s kind of what motivates him. And that seems to be kind of the argument you’re making in your article. And I mean, it’s entirely valid. It certainly does seem to be sort of the case.

Carolyn: Well, I think that Greg has been so successful, financially, he takes in a lot of money. From the way I think, and the way you think, I’m pretty sure, as compared to how much money you have ever gotten, he gets a lot of money. I think he gets a lot from the homosexual community. Because, even though he was criticized for being homosexual, he wouldn’t admit to any of it. He published books by blatant homosexuals, like James O’Meara, who has been exposed on the Internet, cross-dressing, and doing a lot of weird things. Pictures and everything. And Jack Donovan, and he’s been very friendly, he was very friendly with him.

And I think he has a lot of writers. Although, I was looking at his site more recently, which I haven’t for a long time, and he’s got a lot of different people writing articles, there. I don’t know who they all are. But he had a lot of writers that I think, just from the sound of them, the way they wrote, what they wrote about, that I suspect they were homosexuals.

Now, your commenter, Tucker, thinks that I see homosexuals everywhere. I do, I guess, I may have a sensitively to them, because when I think that they are, I notice it. So, I just have my opinion, he depends a lot on the homosexual community, at least for money. And they send him a lot of money because he stands up and publishes their work, and so on.

[25:30]

[Image] Some of the homo imagery featured in Counter-Currents in the last 12 months. Click image to enlarge.

And he also, I don’t know so much now, but back when I was making a study of it, I noticed and pointed out that he had constantly photographs, you know, he has a picture with every little post announcement on his site. Way outnumbered photographs of men with a lot of muscles showing, and not wearing very much. Old classic pictures, [chuckling] classic paintings, and sculptures, and so on. He supposedly deals in the classics, but there’s all these men, the kind of pictures that homosexuals would like looking at. Would really love looking at. So the whole thing just all fits together. And when he would say something like, you know, let me find something that he actually said:

 

“It’s foolish for us to attack the enemy at their best defended points, …”

We’re now into revisionism.

“… Because we can make a case for White identity and White interests that doesn’t depend on whether or not the Nazis got it right, or wrong.”

Things like I, …

John: But I think he’s so wrong about that! Because any time you make a pro-White case, it’s inevitably going to be tied into Hitler, the Nazis and the “Holocaust”. I mean, the jews have been so successful with this fake story, it’s totally discredited any form of White identity, and they pathologize it. And it’s instantly tied in with this!

Carolyn: Yeah. And that’s why he wants to distance himself from National Socialism, and Hitler, as much as possible. And he thinks, says, that will work. But then he also said in this podcast:

“There are many things I think the National Socialists did wrong. And I do think that their plans for the Slavic east were really genocidal.”

Then he said that Plan Ost, which is on the famous Wikipedia page, was a fabrication, as far as he can tell. But he still considers the “Holocaust” a genocide against jews! Now what really gets me, and because we don’t have forever I’m going to jump to it.

In his article on his website that he wrote about the debate, he said some interesting things, and then this Ermin, … What’s his first name? Vince Irmin*, or something, who he published his book. Who wrote a book about Hitler, a kind of a friendly book about Hitler, and Greg’s company published it. He wrote a comment and said he thought Anglin was right.

* Vinson Irmin, “Some Thoughts on Hitler and Other Essays”. Foreword by Kevin MacDonald, edited by Greg Johnson (2012). Click image to enlarge.

He said, Anglin was doing the right thing by, making fun of the “Holocaust” and so on. And Greg wrote a reply to him and he said:

“The ‘Holocaust’ is a great big pile of dead jews, not a normative claim* that jewish suffering is more important than non-jewish suffering.”

[* “Normative” statements/claims present an account of how the world should be. The word contains the stem ‘norm’: something that should be lived up to; or that should be pursued.]

Sorry, I left out that this Irmin said that:

 

“The whole meaning of the ‘Holocaust’ is not genocide, but that it’s a claim of jews that their suffering, during World War Two was vastly more significant than any other suffering in history.”

Comment exchange between Johnson and Irmin. Click images to enlarge.

A very good point, which you would agree with, I’m sure. That’s really what it’s all about. They are so jealous of anybody else having any claims to having, … Then that will come up when we talk about the Poles, and the Pole’s demands now for reparations, if we get a chance to do that.

[30:00]

So, anyway, Greg answered that:

“The “Holocaust” is a great big pile of dead jews, not a normative claim that jewish suffering is more important than non-jews suffering. You can drop that moral absurdity, …”

Everything, he wants to call that way.

“But there’s still a great big pile of dead jews!”

John: But is there really Carolyn?

Carolyn: No!

John: No, there’s not. Exactly!

Carolyn: I mean what is a pile of, … The “Holocaust” has to be more than a pile of dead Jews! There’s piles of dead people of all kinds!

John: Exactly! There’s photos of piles of bodies that are presented to a very gullible traumatized public and were told:

“Oh! Hey look how evil the Nazis are! Look at all these dead people that died in these concentration camps!”

It’s never explained how these people died, what happened, what was going on at the time, there’s no context. It’s all very emotional and psychological exploitative propaganda, that is designed to instill and reinforce this fake narrative!

Carolyn: Right! And here is where I want to make the point that I made in the wrong place before, that he said that Andrew’s position — in this article he said this — Andrew’s position on the “Holocaust” boils down to:

“It never happened. But it should have.”

And he says this is completely indefensible. And I ask, what is “it”? Because I’m saying, my point I’m going to make here, is that you need to define what the “Holocaust” is. That’s why saying it’s a big pile of dead jews, doesn’t cut it!

And then Greg writes:

“First, to say it never happened is factually indefensible. No honest revisionist claims that the ‘Holocaust’ never happened.”

And then he says:

“Robert Faurisson, does claim this, but only by insisting on a particular definition. His argument is too clever by half, …”

[laughs] The pot calling the kettle black!

“… And cannot be taken seriously.”

Oh come on!

“Even if one grants every serious revisionist argument, what remains is ‘Holocaust’ enough for most people.”

Now this is just coming from that 2012, I think it was, long article titled, “Dealing with the “Holocaust” that he published at Occidental Observer. And MacDonald, turns out was totally in agreement with him and ends up coming out later with the very same arguments.

The Occidental Observer article (Jul 20, 2012) by Johnson titled “Dealing with the Holocaust“. Click image to enlarge. Note: the comments are not available to be viewed.

You know, the thing is Faurisson* is right. You have to have a definition for what you’re talking about! What is the “Holocaust”? You can’t talk about the “Holocaust” and then everybody talking about has a different idea what it is. And it’s just a big pile of dead jews, according to this very smart Ph. D., John! Who you say is such a smart man.

[* Robert Faurisson is one of Europe’s foremost Holocaust revisionist scholars]

Article (Aug 30, 2017) by Johnson on the “debate” with Andrew Anglin. Click image to enlarge.

John: No. I hear you. [Carolyn laughs] By the way, you’re referring to an article, and I’ve not read this article, I just found it on Counter hyphen Currents dot com. “My Conversation with Andrew Anglin”.

Carolyn: Right, right. I’ve got a link to it here.

John: I’ll link to that in this blog post, so people can go read what he has to say. It looks like it’s kind of his summary or concluding thoughts on his debate with Anglin.

Carolyn: Right.

John: One thing I wanted to ask you is, and Greg Johnson brought this up in the debate, he’s obviously not like an outright National Socialist, you know, he loves Hitler, etc. But, you know, he’s tries to be objective and fair and say:

“Oh well, the Nazis weren’t that bad, but they did do some things wrong.”

Carolyn, what exactly did Hitler and the Nazis do wrong? I’m trying to figure that out.

Carolyn: See, I don’t agree with that. He mentions that Operation Ost, or whatever it was called, they found some notes about it. There was kind of a plan, but they made all kinds of plans! That different people wrote out plans for the East when they took more control of it, and so on. That doesn’t mean they were ever carried [out], or they were going to be, quite in that way. And so there’s a whole lot made out of that. But then he admits that it’s a fabrication. But he thinks that still, he always says that the Nazis did things wrong. He said it in both the debate and in his article. But he can never really point out to what it is, but he thinks that they did exterminate jews! Now for him, that’s immoral.

[35:18]

He doesn’t say, you know, he’s supposed to be anti-jew, but that’s immoral. Well others, revisionists, say they didn’t exterminate jews and there was never a plan. Now this brings us to the definition of the “Holocaust”, which you’re very aware of, and a lot of people are, but let’s just go over real quick.

As Michael Shermer wrote in 2000, and he’s a jewish “Holocaust” apologist. He says:

“When historians talk about the “Holocaust” what they mean, is that about six million jews were killed in an intentional and systematic fashion by the Nazis using a number of different means, including gas chambers.”

 

[Image] Michael Shermer’s book “Denying History” in which he gives a standard definition of what is the “Holocaust“. Click image to enlarge.

And then Michael Berenbaum and Deborah Lipstadt, said the same thing. So have many, many others. And that’s known to be what they insist on! The jews themselves insist on that, for the “Holocaust”. They don’t let’s you change that, take away from the six million, or say that there was no plan, or intention to kill the jews. And Deborah Lipstadt says; “they were intended to kill every jew in Europe“, and things like that, you know. They have no evidence for that.

And that’s why someone like Greg Johnson doesn’t want to bring that up. Because he knows it can be debunked. But, at the same time he wants to say that there was a “Holocaust” and the Nazis are responsible for it, and that’s why we don’t want to be associated with them, or call ourselves Nazis. That is not the reason. That is all.
nbsp;

[Image] Carlo Mattogno’s book “Fail: Denying History” in which he gives Shermer’s book “Denying History” a good thrashing. Click image to enlarge.

John: And that’s what’s so bizarre to me with, how a guy like Greg Johnson, this very smart man, an academic, a Ph. D. Kevin MacDonald the same thing. Richard Spencer as well. He’s kind of always pooh-poohed revisionism. He doesn’t think it’s important and relevant, at least from what I’ve heard from him in the past, in conversations I’ve had with him.

Carolyn: They all do the same thing!

John: Yeah, they all think we can “step over it”. We don’t have to address it. We can ignore it. It’s not relevant, or related to our current, …

Carolyn: And you know, I also think, I don’t want to make a fuss here, but I also think that Richard Spencer is basically homosexual. And I think there’s a problem with, now of course, Kevin isn’t, but I think there’s a problem with having so many homosexuals in the White movement, as leaders. I think there’s a problem with that personally. So, I just thought I’d bring it up, because it comes up.

John: It always does. And to my knowledge Richard Spencer is not a homosexual. That’s all I’ll say about it. I don’t think that he is. From what I understand he is married and he has a child and everything.

Carolyn: You can do that.

John: My point is, … Right, yeah. Anyways, my point is that these guys, these very smart guys, always dismiss Revisionism. They don’t think it’s important. But what’s bizarre to me is that Revisionism itself is very, very well founded, from a scholarly perspective, from an academic perspective. I mean, all of the books that have been written debunking, scientifically debunking, the “Holocaust” in virtually every single regard, every single aspect of the official “Holocaust” narrative is not true. I can confidently say that at this point. None of it is true! It’s all propaganda! It’s all, just this fake narrative!

Carolyn: And these guys avoid that! They don’t talk about it!

John: Exactly!

Carolyn: They don’t talk about it at all, and then they just say:

“Well I’m not convinced it didn’t happen.”

What kind of thing? They don’t let themselves be convinced. They won’t read anything!

John: And Johnson even argued in the debate that it’s like, “over the heads of most people” and it’s “too difficult to go through all this information”. And it’s like, no! It’s not! I mean, if you just stop and think about it and break it down.

[Image] Holocaust Handbook Series — 1 of 4.  Click image to enlarge.

As you were kind of explaining, the basic tenets of the official “Holocaust” narrative, are; six million jews, it was done in gas chambers, largely, and it was a systematic, coordinated plan, carried out by the Nazis. All three of those assertions are easily proven to be false!

I don’t understand, … It’s clear to me that they are just afraid of this topic! They’re avoiding it, because they think it’s bad PR. I think that’s really what it boils down to.

[40:01]

Carolyn: I used to say that, but now I go further, and I’m pretty convinced that they don’t like Nazism. They don’t like Hitler. And I’ve given my reasons for why Greg doesn’t. But Kevin doesn’t, because he just never has. He likes Americanism. He thinks we need to be American. He doesn’t want to go there.

John: It’s too taboo I think, for MacDonald especially.

Carolyn: Yeah, yeah. I think with Kevin, he personally doesn’t like anything to do with Nazis. It personally turns him off. He doesn’t like uniforms, he doesn’t like the swastika, he doesn’t like any of that. The way they behave. I mean, he really sincerely doesn’t like it, but that means he’s not looking at it, as he supposedly looks at history, in an honest objective manner. He doesn’t want us to get involved with that. And so, that’s why they don’t want to reconstruct, or revisit the “Holocaust”, because if the “Holocaust” didn’t happen then Hitler might be rehabilitated! And that’s the one thing they don’t want. They want Hitler to be the bad guy.

John: Yeah.

Carolyn: You see, some of us don’t want that. So we’re really at odds here!

John: I totally, …

Carolyn: I can’t just ignore that and say:

“Oh well, that is okay, I still support you.”

Because, to me, what they’re doing is keeping us in this bondage to the jews. And they’re helping the jews! They don’t want to help the jews, but they think they can ignore the “Holocaust” and National Socialism, the Third Reich, and move ahead with White identity. And talking about where the jews are wrong and this won’t hurt anything. But all of them, are much more tolerant of jews as friends and in the movement then what I would be.

Richard Spencer was talking in that video I linked you in that comment I wrote, that he thinks that mixed race people can be in the White movement and if they’re mostly White they can certainly, you know, adjust if they really are for us. That we can just accept all these people.

That’s too lax for me.

John: Yep, I hear you. And by the way, the comments that you’re referring, and you mentioned Tucker who is a commenter on my website, this is from our last pod cast. So if you go back in the archives you find the most recent conversation I had with you, you can find all the comments there and kind of see what we’re talking about.

Carolyn: Yeah.

John: Yeah. I mean, to me it just doesn’t make any sense how these are obviously very smart, educated men, can just dismiss all of this scholarly research done into the “Holocaust”, by guys like Germar Rudolf, for example, who is himself a scientist and a Ph. D. Robert Faurisson and many others, countless others! Check out The Barnes Review dot org for all the most classic “Holocaust” revisionists books. They’re all for sale. They’re all worth purchasing and reading in my view.

[Image] Holocaust Handbook Series — 2 of 4.  Click image to enlarge.

We’ve proven that this story is not true! We’ve proven it scientifically, we proven it from a very scholarly perspective. It’s really, in my view, not up for debate anymore. So it’s just a matter of these guys not taking the time to do the research, or just choosing to ignore this and downplay it! And you can’t! I mean, it’s very clear that you can’t! Try going, …

Carolyn: They don’t want that to be a part of their movement!

John: Right.

Carolyn: So to me, they’re dishonest about it. They won’t argue it. You know, they won’t talk, … They won’t say:

“Okay, I think this is wrong and this is why.”

They won’t argue those points. They don’t want to get into it. Because they don’t think they have a very good argument, so they just avoid it. And that I think is dishonest, and it’s not fair.

[44:57]

Now I came across something else at Counter-Currents, just yesterday, written by Kevin MacDonald in 2016, September. One year ago posted there, titled “The Alt-Right and the jews”. And most of it was just the usual thing that Kevin talks about with the jewish influence and how it ruling in our societies, and so on. But then he got into a little more specific things, and he said, which others have said:

“I think it’s fine that some organizations and some Alt-Right figures do not discuss jewish issues.”

Well that’s OK, but then, a few sentences later he said:

“I would love it if there could be an Alt-Right mass movement with significant jewish support.”

And then he gives some reasons why that’s probably not going to happen and why it might not work out so well. But it shows that’s just a different attitude, that he would like to see Jewish support.

[Image] Kmac’s article, “The Alt-Right and the jews” with a couple of critical comments. Click image to enlarge.

John: It’s incredible! I mean, it’s a naive attitude to think:

“Oh, maybe jews will finally be objective, like us, and realize that our message is legitimate, and righteous, and honest!”

No! The jews are never going to admit this! At least not in large numbers. There might be a couple individual jews who would maybe support the idea of a White ethnostate or, sort of go along with our perspective. But overall, the jews have made very clear as a collective racial entity, that they are very, very, and blatantly hostile to our interests, and hostile to the future prospects of our race! And, in fact, are doing everything in their power to bring about our destruction! They make this very clear. So to me it’s very naive. I don’t understand it.

Like, just one day, we are going to finally convince the jews that we have a righteous cause?

Carolyn: If they want to have some jews who they think would see it, … And here’s what he said:

“That jews would see it in their interest that White societies continue to be healthy, because that’s in the jews interests as they live there.”

You know, they don’t want them to deteriorate into all these minorities, factions, and so on then. He’s still talking about jewish interests. So jews are doing it, because it’s best for them, not because it’s in the interest of White people! Not because they identify as White, but only that they want to live in White countries and get along all right for themselves.

So that’s a totally different thing! Yes, it is very naive and it’s very much academic, I guess. You praise these guys, because their Ph D.’s, and then this is an attitude that more academics tend to have. You know, I still respect Kevin MacDonald a great deal. I mean, I’ve always liked him, but I just think that this needs to be said. And I actually hope that more people would look at all this and make comments about it and think about it.

John: Sure.

Carolyn: I think it’s very harmful to what we’re trying to do.

John: I’ll just say publicly, I don’t know if Kevin MacDonald, or Greg Johnson, or Richard Spencer would even listen to this, but if they do and they’re interested in discussing this with me, I’d be more than happy to have them on. I’m sure most people listening [know that] I’m not like this very hostile interviewer. I want to hear them out. I would probably challenge them, obviously.

Carolyn: Well I don’t think they would.

John: I don’t think so.

Carolyn: I sincerely doubt very much, because they don’t want to have to explain themselves. That’s why they do it, the way they do.

John: Well, all I would say is, to a guy like him, Kevin MacDonald, or Greg Johnson, or Spencer, anybody else who kind of goes along with their line of thinking, that we can avoid this issue, “step over it” as Johnson argues, … If you really do think that, that’s fine I guess. I would just say don’t, to use an Alt-Right expression, don’t counter signal revisionists, people that are critically investigating the fake “Holocaust” narrative.

[50:10]

There’s no need to! If you’re not interested in this topic, if you don’t think it’s important, then simply avoid it! But! Don’t accept the mainstream jewish narrative in any way! Just say:

“Hey look! It’s got nothing to do with what I’m saying. White people have rights. My pro-White ideas and views have nothing to do with Hitler, or Nazis, or the “Holocaust”. I don’t care about it! That happened seventy, eighty years ago. What I’m talking about is now!”

That’s all they have to do!

Carolyn: Right.

John: They don’t have to go along with the fake story, they don’t have to say:

“Oh well, Hitler did do some things wrong and jews were persecuted, and murdered.”

No! Just avoid it altogether! That to me is the best approach to take, if you are going to go along with Johnson, and MacDonald, and Spencer, and these other guys.

Carolyn: Well right. I said that in that article about MacDonald and his pod-casts, and it would be okay with me, if you just said:

“I don’t know anything about it. I haven’t studied it. I don’t like to talk about it, because I, have not studied the issue.”

And then that would be it. But instead, he did give some opinions. And then he made a silly comment:

“That I’ve never seen anything that convinced me.”

Well that’s just a dumb comment!

John: He’s not looking very hard then!

Carolyn: No! [laughing] No!

[Image] Revisionist “Holocaust” books. Click image to enlarge.

John: Because, I mean, Dr MacDonald, I’ll send you multiple books, … I mean, you can find this all out on the Internet! And see, that was another thing I wanted to bring up. Johnson kept arguing that to get our message across to people in a modern context, we don’t need to rehabilitate Hitler, or the Third Reich, or National Socialism, or anything like that.

I would disagree with that! I think that from an objective, truth-seeking perspective, it’s very clear that Hitler was a very righteous and honorable man! He was the greatest political statesman in modern Western history! I think you could say that, argue that very, very convincingly from a very objective, scholarly, perspective.

Carolyn: Yes. But you would have to have all your facts and figures at hand. That is not easy, but, yeah! Sure you could! Of course you could.

John: That’s true. And also I think that he still, …

Carolyn: Johnson says that, not because he knows that, or anything, but he says that, because he doesn’t want it! He doesn’t want it to be rehabilitated! Because he doesn’t want it to return.

John: Yeah.

Carolyn: In that way, that’s exactly what the jews don’t want. The jews don’t want Hitler to be rehabilitated more than they care about the “Holocaust”. The “Holocaust” is very important to them. But they don’t want Hitler to return or anything like that! So they’re in accord with that. And that’s why they want to keep the “Holocaust” in place, so they can say:

“Look! He’s responsible for this and we can’t have him. He was a bad guy!”

John: Right, exactly, yeah.

Carolyn: I’m sorry to say, they’re not coming from an honest place. They’re not coming from an honest, scholarly place. And in truth, the whole thing is that everybody comes from what they want to happen. It’s all about power! When you come down to it, history is all, who’s in power, and it’s not what’s true. You can find a lot about truth and what’s true and have different opinions. But in the overall, it’s who’s in power and that’s what it’s going to be.

So you have to change the power. And so someone like Andrew Anglin and his way dealing with that, I’m not saying he does it the best, but that way of dealing with it is in the end, it’s necessary. Because we agree, but we could talk with other people until we were blue in the face. And if they don’t want to change the way, their views of modern life are, they’re not going to go with it.

[54:57]

John: Right. Well really, it’s all about who controls the narrative, and the jews have control of the narrative when it comes to pretty much every major issue of importance. All of the issues that really form our paradigms for how we understand the world, how we understand our history. It’s all a jewish narrative. It’s a jewish approved narrative that advances jewish interests and delegitimizes White interests. I mean, that’s what it’s all about. It’s about controlling the narrative. And what is sad to me is that we’ve made so much progress in countering that jewish narrative, that weaponized, jewish narrative. Certainly within the past, since I’ve been involved in this movement, anyways. I mean, think about “Adolf Hitler, The Greatest Story Never Told”.

Carolyn: Right.

John: What a brilliant film! Very professionally done! Very, very powerful! Very, very moving! A great film, and it’s huge on YouTube. I mean, it’s been censored countless times. But I would venture to say that literally millions of people have seen that, and it has profoundly impacted them. It certainly did for me. And there’s many other documentaries, many other books that have been written, many other pod-casts. I mean, you’ve done a lot of work on this. I think you’ve played a huge role in rehabilitating the image of Hitler, and Nazis, and the WWII narrative, in general. And other people have as well.

Carolyn: Thank you.

John: And this work is so important! And we’ve made a lot of progress, we really have!

Carolyn: You’re right! I mean, that’s why we got to keep pushing! We’ve got to keep pushing it! I’m convinced of that now. That if I do anything, I’m going to just keep working on “Holocaust” revisionism, and also what I can do with Hitler. But mostly with this revisionism, because there is so much. I mean, it’s all been figured out, it’s all been debunked. It’s just a matter of getting people to pay attention.

[Image] Holocaust Handbook Series — 3 of 4.  Click image to enlarge.

You know, I was talking to you about my nephew and what I noticed with him, he’s very open-minded, very nonjudgmental, willing to look at things. But he doesn’t care all that much. I can tell. I sent him some things to read and look at, and he did. And then he said:

“Well, what about this and that, …”

And he wasn’t completely convinced by it. Well, when I came to it I was, like, ready to be convinced. I mean, I wanted to be convinced, I admit that. I wanted it to not be true. Other people wanted it to be, so it was different. But he’s kind of like just, he’s more interested in the Constitution and things like that. So I’m not going to press it, but I did sent him the book, “Debating the Holocaust”, and he said he would read it.

But, you know, you can’t force this down people. It’s not really what they think is most important, so even if he was convinced to some degree, which would at least be nice, it doesn’t mean he would become like me. [laughs]

John: Right. That’s how the vast majority of people are. And that’s why controlling the narrative, controlling how information is presented, whether it’s through the media, whether it’s through our educational establishment, it’s so important. And the jew again, the jews have a total stranglehold over this! At least in the official channels. I think we’re chipping away at that and sort of eroding that. Certainly within the past ten years, or so.

But that’s really what it’s all about. Most people don’t care about World War Two! They don’t care about the “Holocaust”. They don’t care about Hitler.

Carolyn: No.

John: They’re just been taught all these truly false and highly weaponized narratives about this period of our history, and they just accept it. It doesn’t mean much to them, but that’s just what they know, what they’ve been taught. And they don’t really think about it.

So could you imagine, rather than watching Schindler’s List, in seventh grade, when we were in our English class, we’re watching, you know, “Adolf Hitler, The Greatest Story Never Told”. Which is clearly much more objective and scholarly than any of these ridiculous “Holocaust” films.

Carolyn: Right.

John: And people would have a much different perspective, a much different outlook on everything! On life in general.

Carolyn: They would! Absolutely! That’s just absolutely true! So, this is where it’s at. It’s a tough battle, that’s what it is. But I just think, that when it comes to revisionism, if everybody in the White activist movement would get on board with it. And would talk in favor of it, it would make a big difference. I think it would, because lots of people just never mention it, that are influential. I just think it would be good, but obviously it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen.

[60:19]

John: I completely agree with you. and I think that, again, more advice to people that kind of go along with Johnson, and MacDonald , and others. Look at this from strictly a free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of intellectual inquiry, think about it just from that perspective. I mean, we should be able to question the “Holocaust”! We should be able to critically examine it and to entertain other ideas, other perspectives about what really happened. Just that alone, I mean, just from a free speech perspective, …

Carolyn: Well, my nephew, …

John: You don’t have to agree with it, but you should be able to say:

“Hey look, I think the “Holocaust” really did happen! but if somebody wants to question it and do research into it, I fully support them in doing that.”

You know what I mean?

Carolyn: Yeah. my nephew did say, … He looked at all these great arguments and he was like, “Yeah, yeah, yeah.”

But then when I happened to bring up in passing, the laws against it in Europe, and how you couldn’t talk about it, you go to jail, he said:

“That’s one of the more convincing part of it, to me.”

Yeah!

John: Well, it is! It totally flies in the face of American traditions, you know, free speech, the First Amendment! It’s totally contrary to all that!

Carolyn: Yeah! Am I breaking up to you?

John: No.

Carolyn: Yours is breaking up to me, but maybe that doesn’t matter.

John: Okay. No. You’ve been crystal clear this entire time.

Carolyn: Okay.

John: Carolyn, I know we’re pretty much at the hour mark and we’re going to wrap up here in just a second. I just wanted to really emphasize the fact that this fake narrative, this fake “Holocaust” narrative, this hysterical, irrational, entirely unfounded, you know, demonization of Hitler and the Nazis. This narrative really is the bedrock of the entire New World Order agenda, the White genocide agenda, which are basically one and the same thing, right? This is so clear, so easy to demonstrate, that this is the case!

There’s a couple articles I just want to highlight and bring up here real quick. One of which was just published over at The Renegade Tribune, and it’s written by a man named, John Wear, who has actually contributed to The Barnes Review in the past, and I think The Barnes Review sells some of his books, if I’m not mistaken.

He wrote an article called “Why the Holocaust Story was Invented” and he lists a number of reasons that kind of explain the purpose of the fake “Holocaust” narrative. What agenda it’s advancing and, of course, the establishment of Israel, and the demonization of Germany, etc., There’s a number of arguments he makes. It’s very, very much worth reading. I don’t know if you caught that. I tweeted it out today.

I will also link it when I post, …

Carolyn: I read something by him, that maybe you sent to me?

John: It’s good, yeah.

Carolyn: I’m trying to remember it.

John: And this article this may be an older article, I’m not sure. I just saw it posted by Kyle Hunt at The Renegade Tribune. so it may be an article that John Wear wrote in the past, and he’s just reposting it. I know he does that often.

But it’s worth reading. it’s very good. I mean, …

Carolyn: Does he kind of hold off in certain areas, he’s not one hundred percent, or is this just in this thing I read? It seems like he was doing that. Maybe to be more acceptable, more convincing, or something? I don’t know. I can’t remember. I actually can’t remember exactly what it was. But would you say he kind of holds back a little bit, or not?

John: From what I can tell it doesn’t seem like that to me.

Carolyn: Okay.

John: I mean, maybe you wouldn’t be as forceful as we are when we talk about these subjects, but no, he seems pretty solid to me.

And this article is very good, it’s worth reading.

And then also, I wrote an article and, you know, I’ve been harping on this issue for a number of years. And this article goes back to April 26th of 2015. And it’s actually on my old blog, my old blogspot website, which amazingly is still up right now. If you go to it, it’s John Friends blog dot blogspot dot com. [johnfriendsblog.blogspot.com]

[65:00]

If you go to it, Google has that warning, you know, this is restricted content, or controversial content, or whatever. You have to click, “I understand and I Will Continue”. So they’re basically kind of censoring it. But anyways, you can still find it. And again I’ll link to this article as well.

And this article is titled, “Top jewish Leader Claims Entire Western World Culpable for the Holocau$t”*. And I just highlighted an article I found in the “Algemeine”, which is a jewish newspaper. Again, people who have followed my site know I highlight jewish newspapers and just what the jews actually say, just to expose their agenda and everything that they’re about. Because again, they openly admit these things and say exactly what they’re up to.

And this article in particular, I was highlighting, some comments that were made by Ron Lauder, who I believe still is the President of the World jewish Congress.

[* http:// johnfriendsblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/top-jewish-leader-claims-entire-western.html]

And this was right around the time of the, …

Carolyn: Whose name did you say?

John: Ron Lauder. Ronald Lauder.

Carolyn: Yeah.

John: Yeah, he’s a big time jew that is been involved in all this stuff for a long time. Anyways, he made a speech, this was at the seventieth anniversary of the liberation of Bergen-Belsen. And he’s basically arguing that literally the entire Western world is essentially responsible for the “Holocaust” happening. Because they didn’t do enough to help the jews!

And it’s just so incredible some of the statements that these jews make! You know, he’s demonizing the United States for, quote, unquote:

“Shutting it’s doors to jews that were trying to flee Europe. And no one was doing enough to help the poor jews in Europe, ” etc.,

It’s just, it’s so infuriating seeing what these jews say, and just how brazen they are!

Carolyn: They’ve got such balls, they are almost like, insane! It’s almost like they’re stupid! Because they come out with stuff like. It’s not going to be accepted. And it just reinforces the idea that Jewish deaths are more important than anybody else’s! If the whole world has to stop and be responsible for what happened here, for this huge number they came up with, this six million baloney! But I mean, sometimes they are talking to jews and they don’t think the rest of us are going to be paying any attention.

John: Yeah. That is true, and most people, …

Carolyn: But I can’t see how xxx jews would like that either?

John: And that’s the thing, most people don’t ever sit down and read jewish newspapers and jewish news outlets. Which is why I try to highlight them and say:

“Hey! Look these jews are saying this, not me! You can call me an anti-Semite, and a neo-Nazi and everything else, but all I’m doing is quoting jews themselves, OK? ”

Carolyn: Yeah.

It’s amazing the Jews are so important, that to say that the whole world, even to say all Europe and all Europeans are responsible for what happened to them! And then what? What does he say? What’s supposed to be done about it?

John: Well, unlimited money, unlimited sympathy, unlimited, just acquiescence to this jewish agenda to genocide our race.

Carolyn: Well, I think they want to pass laws against anti-semitism. I think that is what they’re after.

John: Yeah. Exactly.

Carolyn: And there’s nothing worse than that! To say:

“Oh yeah, it’s illegal! You’re going to go to jail if you express anything that we consider anti-semitic.”

And they’ve got a whole, … They’re working out what anti-semitism is. There’s a whole list of stuff. I mean, it’s all kinds of stuff! It includes criticizing Israel in various ways and so, you know, it just puts them totally, outside of anybody’s control in any way, shape, or form. And they can’t be harmed, nothing can happen to them in any way. So they’re not even responsible for obeying laws, or whatever.

So, they are just showing that they really do want extraordinary privileges.

John: Privilege! They talk about White privilege all the time! It’s really jewish privilege and [for] other minorities that they’ve elevated, and used as weapons against our race!

Yes no doubt! I mean, again it’s very clear if you just read what Jews have to say and listen to what they have to say.

[Image] Holocaust Handbook Series — 4 of 4.  Click image to enlarge.

[70:00]

Carolyn: I think sometimes we’re at war! That’s one thing that Hitler recognized. And people blame him for it, saying he shouldn’t have. This was a war and he couldn’t evade it. You have to go ahead and do it.

And we’re at war with these jews, and we can’t say:

“Oh well, let’s hope we can all get along! Let’s hope that some of them will be on our side.”

What? Five or six of them? [bursts out laughing]

John: Exactly! Exactly!

Carolyn: It’s just aversion for having to confront things. And of course for war, getting serious, … It’s no fun! It’s terrible! Of course we’d like to evade it! But sometimes you can’t, because you’re just going to be done in by it.

That’s probably one argument for what Hitler finally did about the jews in Germany. He went about it in such a mild way in the beginning! Just helping them out, you know, working with the Zionists that wanted to go somewhere else anyway. I don’t know, you know, … It built up, because of jews from around the world who didn’t want that to happen.

John: Yeah. Yeah again, and that’s what’s so incredible when you really have a good understanding of revisionism and all the research that’s been done to actually demonstrate that the Germans were not interested in killing jews, at all! They were interested in preserving their lives, because they wanted to use their labor in some of these labor camps.

Again, it’s like the total opposite of what we’ve been told. But again, the whole World War narrative is essentially the exact opposite of what we’ve been told!

But I wanted to also highlight one other article that I actually cite in this article that I mentioned. That’s on my blog. You can find you can find what I’m about to read there, and again I’ll link this when I post this program.

[Image] Ian Kagedan. Click image to enlarge.

There was an article written by a man named Ian Kagedan, I think is how you pronounce it. He was the former national director of the B’nai B’rth in Canada, and you wrote a very, very revealing op-ed in The Toronto Star, back in 1991. And the title of it is, get this Carolyn, I’m sure you’ve heard of this, “Memory of the Holocaust Central to New World Order”. That’s literally the title of the article, or of the op-ed.

“Central to New World Order“, right? I mean, this is the title of the article. It’s incredible! And he argues here, quote:

“The Holocau$t stands as Western civilizations greatest failure! It was a natural outcome of centuries of racism and of anti-Semitism. To deny the Holocau$t is to deny racism’s capacity to undercut our civilization’s basic values and to destroy democracy. Achieving our quest of a New [Jew] World Order depends on our learning the Holocau$t lessons.”

And what are the lessons of the “Holocaust”? I mean, again, this proves my point. The fake “Holocaust” narrative is literally the linchpin of the entire New World Order agenda! Which is simply a jewish plot to enslave the world, politically, economically and culturally, destroying all genuine national and racial distinctions in the process.

And the lessons of the “Holocaust”, which, of course, include “tolerance, diversity, anti-racism, multiculturalism”. The lessons of the “Holocaust” are specifically designed to erode, de-legitimizes and ultimately destroy any form of White racial identity, and to justify multiculturalism, and massive non-White immigration into the West. And to end all criticism of jews and the jewish state of Israel, and to equate it with anti-Semitism and hate speech. That’s what this is all about!

Carolyn: Yeah.

John: I mean, how could we avoid this Carolyn?

Carolyn: He makes it very clearly, doesn’t he? That’s a horrible picture! Total enslavement! You’re going to be programmed with this stuff and you’re going to believe it, or you’re on the outs. You’re somebody who’s bad, can’t exist in our societies. So you’d have to go into some bad place, or whatever.

And this is the kind of thing you have to fight! But these people will say:

“Oh! That is just that one guy. Nobody will ever fall for all that stuff!”

Well look at how much the world has fallen for it, now.

[75:13]

And I guess they can fall for the rest of it, if the media continues to be so controlled. I don’t want to bring this up, as I don’t want to take up any more time, but just to say real quickly, … Then there’s Trump, who is like somebody who’s, you know, standing against that, but he doesn’t have the power to overcome it. We all have to overcome it! We all have to do it. We have to say:

 

“God! We have to stop this!”

And that’s why people like, this is what I was going to say, but I couldn’t remember. Just this, that’s what people like MacDonald and Johnson are getting in the way of! They’re actually helping the jews in what they’re doing!

They need to be told this! They need to, … This needs to be pushed in their face, actually! I mean, rather than say:

“Oh well, we don’t want to say anything bad about them. We have to support them.”

John: Yeah, I completely with you. I would be willing to discuss this with any of them and make my opinions very clear. Not just opinions. Again, how could you, …

Carolyn: You know, I wish we could! John, here’s an idea. Somebody was talking about they’d like to have a debate with, … Mark. Mark Weber! You know Mark Weber, … Johnson got his ideas from Mark Weber, or Mark Weber helped him. Or maybe he didn’t mean to send him in that direction, altogether, but they got it from there. And they think that Mark Weber and David Irving gives them some support.

And MacDonald, I believe too, knows Mark Weber quite well. And they get those ideas from Mark Weber. And yet I just don’t think Mark Weber is so afraid of this, as they are.

Maybe we could get a conversation with Mark Weber? At one time Mark Weber wanted to talk on the phone with me, and discuss all these things. And I wouldn’t do it, because I was so in disagreement with him, and I though he was trying to make me see it his way. But I would talk to him now, but I would rather talk to him in public, on a public debate, a public forum, not necessarily a debate. And ask him some questions. I don’t know he’d be willing to do that, or not. But it just occurs to me that he might be more willing than MacDonald or Johnson would be.

John: Carolyn, I’m going to see if I can make that happen, because I actually know Mark Weber.

Carolyn: Good.

John: I’ll see what I can do on that front. Boy! that would be very, very interesting! [laughing]

Carolyn: Yeah!

John: Well. I’ll see what I can do. And I’ll certainly be in touch. We’re well past the hour now, but that’s okay, let’s go ahead and wrap up.

I just want to conclude by saying, I think from my perspective, which I think I could defend very well, … Objectively speaking, Hitler was in fact the greatest White leader in modern history! That’s very clear to me. I think we do need to rehabilitate his image, and I think we’ve done a good job at doing that, over the course of the past, say ten years, or whatever. Pro-White ideas and perspectives will always! Always! Always be tied to Hitler, to the Nazis, to the “Holocaust”! There’s no reason to avoid it, or to cower in fear about it! We are right! And we have the evidence and the proof to demonstrate that we’re right!

And, this is something we need to tackle head on! And if you don’t want to, if you disagree with me, don’t counter signal it! Just, avoid it! Step over it. Whatever you’ve got to do. But don’t accept this jewish nonsense about gas chambers, and jews were murdered in this and that.

[Image] Holocaust Myth Cartoon. Click image to enlarge.

It’s all bullshit! Everything the jews have to say about the “Holocaust” is utter bullshit! Designed specifically to advance jewish interests, and to delegitimize White racial interests! That is so clear, it’s so obvious, we should not even be debating this at this point.

That’s all I got to say Carolyn. Go ahead.

Carolyn: Well. I agree with you John! Good for you!

John: Thank you. [both laugh]

Well this has been fun, Carolyn. I’ll go ahead and post this up tonight, and I’ll see if I get Mark Weber to talk about this. That would be very interesting.

Carolyn: Good! Okay! Well, it’s been fun for me too! And so, I hope the listeners enjoy it. Thanks John.

John: Okay. Thank you very much! I will talk to you real soon.

Carolyn: Good.

John: All right. Good night.

[80:28]

END

===============================================

See Also:

The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention — Instauration Dec, 1979

An Open Letter to New Jersey’s Governor

Historians or Hoaxers?

House of Orwell

Misha: Surviving with Wolves or …

Bradley Smith’s Smith Report # 1

The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies

The Plum Cake

Auschwitz: Myths and Facts

Powers and Principalities XI – Ewen Cameron, MK-Ultra, Holocaust Revisionism — TRANSCRIPT

Tales of the Holohoax – A Historian’s Assessment – Part 1

The Holocaust Lie — Made in America

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained — TRANSCRIPT

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

Holocaust Eyewitnesses: Is the Testimony Reliable?

Alain Soral – My Homage to Robert Faurisson, Oct 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Inside Auschwitz – You’ve never seen THIS before! — TRANSCRIPT

Amazion Bans 100s of Holocaust Revisionist Books!

AUSCHWITZ – A Personal Account by Thies Christophersen

Jim Rizoli Interviews Bradley Smith — TRANSCRIPT

London Forum – Alfred Schaefer – Psychological Warfare – TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report Interviews Eric Hunt — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio – Germar Rudolf – Persecution of Revisionists & Demographic Disaster – Part 1— TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio: Nicholas Kollerstrom — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice TV – Ingrid Carlqvist – Scandal in Sweden When Ingrid Questions the Unquestionable — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Carolyn Yeager on Johnson vs Anglin debate — TRANSCRIPT

============================================

PDF Notes

PDF: Version 1 — Sep 21, 2017

* Total words = 12,525
* Total images = 35
* Total A4 pages = 94

Click to download a PDF of this post (6.0 MB):

The Realist Report – Carolyn Yeager – Sep 2017 — TRANSCRIPT

Version History

Version 12: Jun 2, 2022 — Improved formatting.

Version 11: Jan 30, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version. Added See Also links.

Version 10: Sep 21, 2017 — Added PDF Version 1 for download.

Version 9: Sep 18, 2017 — Added some more links, and corrected some typos. Removed Transcript Status items. Added 1 image.

Version 8: Sep 17, 2017  — Added 15 images. Updated cover image. Expanded my intro.

Version 7: Sep 16, 2017  — Added 4 images. Proofed 15 more minutes. Total proofed = 80 mins. TRANSCRIPT NOW COMPLETE!

Version 6: Sep 14, 2017  — Added 3 images. Proofed 5 more minutes. Total proofed = 65 mins.

Version 5: Sep 13, 2017  — Added 3 images. Proofed 5 more minutes. Total proofed = 60 mins.

Version 4: Sep 12, 2017  — Proofed 10 more minutes. Total proofed = 55 mins.

Version 3: Sep 11, 2017  — Added 1 image. Proofed 10 more minutes. Total proofed = 45 mins.

Version 2: Sep 10, 2017  — Added 5 images. Proofed 10 more minutes. Total proofed = 35 mins.

Version 1: Sep 9, 2017  — Published post. Total proofed = 25 mins.

[The following text, A Normie’s Guide to the Alt-Right  (available here as a PDF) was posted on The Daily Stormer website by its publisher Andrew Anglin on August 31, 2016. Its purpose is to give people new to the movement a brief overview, from the Stormer’s point of view, of what the Alt-Right is and isn’t, covering its history, the people involved, beliefs and terms commonly used.

To quote Andrew Anglin:

“The core concept of the movement, upon which all else is based, is that Whites are undergoing an extermination, via mass immigration into White countries which was enabled by a corrosive liberal ideology of White self-hatred, and that the Jews are at the center of this agenda.”

— KATANA]

The Daily Stormer

A Normie’s Guide to

 the Alt-Right

 

CONTENTS

Introduction

An Accurate History of the Alt-Right

Troll Culture

Conspiracy Theorism

Libertarianism/Paleoconservatism

The Manosphere

#Gamergate

The Old White Nationalist Movement

Identitarian Movements

A Reboot of the White Nationalist Movement

Creating a Counter Culture Which Eventually Becomes the Dominant Culture

The Ideology and Values of the Alt-Right

Anti-Semitism

White Countries for White People

Scientific Racism

Opposition to Feminism and “Gender Equality” Support for Traditional Families

Endorsement of White History

Cultural Normalization

Common Sense Economics

The White Struggle as a Global Battle

Our Memes

Pepe

Bane

Normie

Dindu Nuffin

Shitlord

Cuck

White Genocide

We wuz Kangz

Le Happy Merchant

1488

Holohoax

(((Echoes)))

KEK

Nirvana Fallacy

Sam Hyde

GTK-RWN

“Vibrant Diversity”

Anime

RetroWave

“It’s [Current Year]”

“Leaders” of the Alt-Right and the Media’s Fake Narrative

The Future of the Alt-Right

See Also

PDF Download

Version History

________________

 

 

Introduction

top

 

Following condemnations by Hillary Clinton, everyone in the world is now trying to define exactly what the Alt-Right is. Most of them are getting it wrong.

The short story is that although the term could refer to a lot of different people saying a lot of different things, the people that it is being used to refer to by the media – Trump-supporting White racial advocates who engage in trolling an other activism on the internet – are the core of the movement, with any other groups and figures being peripheral.

The core concept of the movement, upon which all else is based, is that Whites are undergoing an extermination, via mass immigration into White countries which was enabled by a corrosive liberal ideology of White self-hatred, and that the Jews are at the center of this agenda.

 

The Alt-Right is a “mass movement” in the truest possible sense of the term, a type of mass-movement that could only exist on the internet, where everyone’s voice is as loud as they are able to make it. In the world of the internet, top-down hierarchy can only be based on the value, or perceived value, of someone’s ideas. The Alt-Right is an online mob of disinfranchised and mostly anonymous, mostly young White men.  This collective of dissidents argued with itself until it reached a consensus (consensus is yet to reach 100%, but it is damn close). We have now moved from arguments and debates and become a new political collective, a type of hive mind.

 

The mob is the movement.

 

Some of the ways the movement presents itself can be confusing to the mainstream, given the level of irony involved. The amount of humor and vulgarity confuses people. The true nature of the movement, however, is serious and idealistic. We have in this new millennium an extremely nihilistic culture. From the point when I first became active in what has become the Alt-Right movement, it was my contention that in an age of nihilism, absolute idealism must be couched in irony in order to be taken seriously. This is because anyone who attempts to present himself as serious will immediately be viewed as the opposite through the jaded lens of our post-modern milieu.

 

Now, on to the long story.

 

I will first lay out what the movement actually is and where it came from, and then layout what it appears to be to the mainstream media, and why I believe these narratives differ so drastically, and conclude with some loose predictions of where I see all of this going in the future.

 

 

An Accurate History of the Alt-Right

top

 

Roughly four years ago, a new type of White nationalist movement began to form on the internet. This was mostly made-up of young people who were formulating ideas with minimal influence from prior White nationalist movements.

It was a situation of different online subcultures (some of which were influenced by older offline movements) coming together. These groups collided, based on their having reached common conclusions, and the result is what is now called the Alt-Right.

 

I am going to layout here these various factions, and what ultimately led them toward this center-point where we have all met. The campaign of Donald Trump is effectively the nexus of that centerpoint.

 

 

Note that there is quite a bit of overlap between these various communities, with many people – myself included – having traveled through more than one. Breaking them down into specific categories just makes it easier to grasp the overall development of the different threads of thought.

 

Note: I will list associated sites and people for each sub-group, though these sites will not necessarily be Alt-Right in nature. They are merely to let people know what is associated with the various factions.

 

 

 

 

Troll Culture

top

 

 

In my view, the core identity of the current Alt-Right originates from the highly intellectual meme and trolling culture which was birthed on 4chan in the 00’s.

 

The birth of the internet age marked the first time in history that unlimited amounts of information were available at people’s fingertips, and courageous men began to sort through it and discuss it wherever they were allowed to.

 

It was on 4chan’s /pol/ that most of the core concepts of what is now the Alt-Right were figured out. Many of the key “anons” (anonymous imageboard posters) from this group were people who had previously been involved in 4chan’s /b/, which is where modern internet trolling techniques originated.

 

The anonymous nature of 4chan allowed for all different sorts of people to get together and discuss all sorts of ideas, without having those ideas attached to an identity of any kind (not even an internet pseudonym). Anti-Semitic and racist jokes had been a key feature of/b/, but on /pol/ the sentiments behind the jokes slowly became serious, as people realized they were based on fact. /pol/ became a haven for virulent anti-Semites and aggressive racists, and tone of the Alt-Right is drawn directly from these roots on 4chan.

 

On 4chan, the Jewish problem was analyzed by news junkies and history buffs, feminism was deconstructed by sexually frustrated young men, and race was considered based on the actual data on the issue. The rehabilitation of Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP largely took place on 4chan.

 

 

This newly formulated Nazi ideology was then combined with the established troll culture, based on memes, hilarious images designed to transmit cultural concepts, and “lulz,” a term coined by the troll Jameth which defines the type of malicious humor associated with trolling.

 

Culture-jamming and various other forms of conscious social- engineering were first applied to online activism here. This made promoting the right-wing agenda not only meaningful, but also extremely fun. The Alt-Right carries with it that spirit of fun.

 

 

Sites and People:

 

1 /pol/ – Effectively ground zero of the Alt-Right, in that this is where the aesthetic and basic ideology of the Alt-Right originated.

 

2 weev – Troll zero, weev was the key non-anon originator of what we now understand as troll culture.

 

3 Daily Stormer – A neo-Nazi website which rips-off memes from 4chan and refuses to give them credit.

 

4 The Right Stuff – An edgy website for trolls, which features a wide array of podcasts, some of which are professionally produced. Originator of the echoes meme.

 

5 My Posting Career – It doesn’t really go in this category, but has to be put somewhere, as it has been an extremely influential site. Originator of the term “cuckservative.”

 

6 Ricky Vaughn – A Twitter personality.

7 Paul Town – Another Twitter personality.

8 GotNews.com – Another one that doesn’t exactly go here, but
the site’s proprietor, Chuck Johnson, has been confirmed to have Internet Troll Personality Disorder (ITPD).

 

Contributions:

 

1 Trolling
2 Memes
3 lulz
4 Non-ironic Nazism masquerading as ironic Nazism
5 Anime Nazism

 

 

Conspiracy Theorism

top

 

Throughout the 00’s, conspiracy theorism was a key dissident movement on the internet. The movement was an extension of old anti-communist propaganda which had aired on shortwave radio, supercharged by the internet and a generally high level of confusion in society which led people to consider alternate explanations for events.

The movement gained traction initially with theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks having been orchestrated by intelligence agencies, rather than random Moslems. This was attached to anti-globalist concepts and the term “New World Order,” as well as more obscure theories regarding Freemasonry and global satanism.

 

 

At the turn of the decade, however, the movement began to lose steam, as the conspiracy theories being promoted by the people who promote such theories had become increasingly bizarre/insane.

 

The people from the conspiracy scene then began becoming increasingly focused on the Jewish problem. Even those who currently do not focus on the Jewish issue have moved closer to Alt-Right type ideas regarding race and culture.

 

Sites and People:

 

1 Infowars – The world’s foremost conspiracy website, run by a large man named Alex Jones. The site has, over the last year, become increasingly aligned with Alt-Right ideas, though without talking about the Jews. They have dumped a lot of the hardline kookery of the 00’s conspiracy movement.

2 Rense – The world’s second-most conspiracy website, run by Jeff Rense. It is just a link site, but it has influenced the narrative of the conspiracy movement in the way it chooses links. If you browse it now, a lot of the content is Alt-Rightish.

3 Red Ice – Heinrich Palmgren’s radio program started with a focus on conspiracies, but he has since moved into the Alt-Right. He has also expanded into other media.

4 Paul Joseph Watson – Lead agent of Infowars, Watson made a huge pivot from promoting chemtrails-tier kookery to anti-SJW materials last year. He has claimed that Jews do not control the media.

5 Veteran’s Today – The commentary website of Jewish conspiracy theorist Gordon Duff. The site is the last remaining bastion of hardline “tinfoil hat” type conspiracy theories. Duff has admitted to purposefully publishing disinformation.

6 David Icke – A British person who believes the world is controlled by lizard people from another dimension (all of whom happen to be Jewish).

 

Contributions:

1 A willingness to look critically at mainstream narratives

 

 

Libertarianism/Paleoconservatism

top

 

 

Though there is technically a difference between Libertarianism and paleoconservatism, the most notable figures could be identified using either of these terms. This was a counter-culture movement popular in the 00’s, fueled largely by Ron Paul’s ’08 and ’12 Presidential campaigns. Its roots went back to the campaigns of Pat Buchanan.

 

In the early 2010’s, we saw many in the libertarian community becoming seriously disillusioned with their own movement. Ron Paul had failed miserably to gain traction in his 2012 Presidential bid, and much of the basic doctrine of the movement was beginning to look stale as other ways of looking at society were beginning to be presented – in particular, Fascism and National Socialism were introduced as competing alternatives to the current system of materialism, consumerism and corrupt crony capitalism.

 

At the same time, discussion of economics appeared to be becoming increasingly irrelevant, partially due to the immediate nature of social and cultural problems, and partially due to the development of technology making the old economic models obsolete.

 

Sites and People:

 

1 TakiMag – A politically incorrect paleoconservative blog published by Taki Theodoracopulos.

2 Stefan Molyneux – A Libertarian YouTuber who has progressively moved away from hardline Libertarian cult doctrine and toward social criticism. He still doesn’t talk about the Jews.

3 Pat Buchanan – A former Presidential candidate and current columnist and commentator, he is one of the only modern mainstream politicians to criticize Jews.

4 Joe Sobran – Anti-Semitic Catholic columnist, now deceased.

5 Ron Paul – Failed presidential candidate.

6 Council of Conservative Citizens – An paleoconservative and pro-White organization founded in the 80’s. Recently accused of brainwashing Dylann Roof.

7 American Free Press – A newspaper and website which promotes Libertarian-conservative politics and anti-Semitism.

 

Contributions:

 

1 Early anti-political correctness and criticism of Jewish influence

 

 

The Manosphere

top

 

 

At the same time that 4chan was discovering Adolf Hitler, the pick-up artist community was in the process of transforming into what is now called the Manosphere. These are groups of men disillusioned with feminism in society.

 

Having used the starting point of feminism to look at the ills of our modern society, many of these men began to look at the Jews (who happened to have invented feminism) as playing a destructive role in the development of modern Western culture. Already outside of the bounds of what is socially acceptable, these guys did not have a problem entering into new realms of political incorrectness.

 

Sites and People:

 

1 Return of Kings – The blog of Roosh V, originally a purely Manosphere-oriented site which now covers a variety of political and social issues.

2 Chateau Heartiste – A pick-up artist and anti-feminist blog which has moved progressively into politics.

3 Davis Aurini – A Manosphere figure who has become more political.

4 Matt Forney – A Manosphere blogger who now writes various right-wing materials.

 

Contributions:

 

1 Anti-Feminism
2 Anti-Homosexuality
3 Men’s Rights

 

 

#Gamergate

top

 

 

The Gamergate provided a direct entry-point to what is now called the Alt-Right, as it was made-up of young White men who realized they were being disenfranchised by feminism and political correctness when aggressive SJWs began invading their space and making demands of them, and ended up digging into the “dark corners of the internet” to try and figure out what was happening.

 

Gamergate is notable in that they had some very serious successes in fighting off attempts to maintain their hobby as a White male affair (though Daily Stormer is the only site which has actually gotten a feminist fired from a video game company).

 

After Gamergate was banned from 4chan (a weird decision by moot, the site’s owner, when he was courting a Jewish girl who writes for Gawker), the movement transferred its base to 8chan, and was largely responsible for initially populating that site (it has also become popular among the Alt-Right, generally). Mingling there with Alt- Righters, many people involved became active in other aspects of the right-wing movement.

 

Sites and People:

1 8ch.net/v/ – The de facto home of the movement.

2 /r/KokatuInAction – The other de facto home of the movement.

3 Vox Day – A blogger, science fiction writer and various other
things.

 

Contributions:

 

1 Drawing battlelines for the culture war
2 Making video games White and male again

 

 

The Old White Nationalist Movement

top

 

 

Finally, these various groups were combined, to various extents, with the older White Nationalist movements, which had existed since the fifties.

 

Some of those involved in the older movements dislike the Alt-Right because they don’t understand the humor involved, they think it is too hardcore, or because it rejects certain aspects of liberalism which they hold dear, such as feminism.

 

Sites and People:

 

1 Stormfront – The original WN spot on the internet.

2 David Duke – The grandfather of the White Nationalist
movement.

3 VDARE – Edited and run by Peter Brimelow, VDARE is
mainly focused on the immigration issue. They have some great
writers, including James Kirkpatrick.

4 The Occidental Observer – Run by Dr. Kevin MacDonald, TOO
publishes long essays on Jews, some of which are pretty good.

5 Traditionalist Youth Network – The home of Matt Heimbach’s
Traditonalist Workers Party.

6 VNN – Alex Linder’s forum, VNN is a classic WN site.

7 American Renaissance – Jared Taylor’s organization, which is
also the name of his news website.

8 Occidental Dissent – The blog of the League of the South’s
Hunter Wallace.

 

Contributions:

 

1 IQ statistics
2 Various ideas and concepts

 

 

Identitarian Movements

top

 

 

Like the standard WN movements, identitarian movements developed separate from the core of the Alt-Right and combined/mingled with it to an extent over the last couple of years.

 

Identitarianism is an attempt at Americanizing certain themes of European nationalism which were seen to be lacking in the White Nationalist movement in America.

 

The exact differences between “Identitarianism” and “White Nationalism” have never been entirely clear to me, but those who fall under the former label tend to be more socially liberal than other factions of the Alt-Right, endorsing homosexuality and taking a softer stance on the need for pure White nations.

 

Sites and people:

1 Counter-Currents – Greg Johnson’s blog, publishes a lot of highly excellent essays. They also publish books.

2 Radix Journal – Richard Spencer’s blog.

 

Contributions:

1 The term “Alt-Right”

2 A bunch of books and essays

 

 

 

A Reboot of the White Nationalist Movement

top

 

The movement is, at this point, entirely leaderless. The people involved in contributing to and/or consuming the content are on different Alt-Right sites and forums, many are on Twitter, reddit, 4chan, etc.

 

There are minor “leaders,” people who others listen to, but because there is yet to be an officially codified doctrine, no actual leader exists. The mob is the movement.

 

It is also important to understand that though older people are involved, this is fundamentally a youth movement, mainly made up of millennials. People in their thirties and beyond tend not to change their opinions very easily, so those older people who are involved mostly come from the older White Nationalist scene.

 

The reason that all of these various movements came together and developed the same basic values is not that they were built on something else. For the most part, it was people honestly searching for conclusions as to what was going on in the world in the information age. The reason these different groups ended up coming to the same conclusions about the Jews, race, feminism and the rest of it was that they had unlimited access to information, and open minds, so they all happened upon the objective truth.

 

That is the probably most fitting definition of the Alt-Right from the perspective of those involved in the movement: a confluence of various groups of White men who reached the same objective truths through different avenues.

 

The Alt-Right can be viewed as a reboot of the White Nationalist movement. This is a simplification, but one which is basically accurate. People went out seeking the truth, found it, but instead of joining an existing movement which had a mostly similar ideology (the above mentioned old White Nationalist movement), they formulated a new movement.

 

Many of the memes of the old WN movement have been adopted by the Alt-Right, and are used with varying levels of irony.

 

That said, there is nothing fundamentally different about the Alt-Right and the old White Nationalist movement. They have the same basic goals but simply use different methods in their attempts to achieve them.

 

 

 

Creating a Counter Culture Which Eventually Becomes the Dominant Culture

top

 

The end goal of the Alt-Right is to first solidify a stable and self-sustaining counter-culture, and then eventually push this into becoming the dominant culture, in the same way that the Jewish-led revolutionary counter-culture of the 1960s has now become the dominant culture of the West.

 

I have personally been very conscious of this goal, and formulated strategies through which to accomplish it. I have studied in some detail the methodology used by the Jewish revolutionaries of the 1960’s, and done my best to adapt this methodology to the digital age.

 

 

Of particular importance to me was the book “Rules for Radicals” by the Jew Saul Alinsky, given that he codified the strategy used by the Jews to tear down the entire ancient body of European traditions and social norms and replace it with something the Jews felt more comfortable with.

 

Given the all-encompassing nature of the current ruling system, our only real advantage is that we are outsiders. When the Jewish bandit- king David killed Goliath, he did so with a dirty trick, which bypassed the established rules, thus winning a battle he could never have won fairly. The Jews did the same thing in the 60’s. We are doing it now.

 

 

In the interest of understanding the relationship between the Alt-Right and the old White Nationalist movement, it is worth noting that most tension which exists between the two groups is based on the latter failing to grasp the methodology of the former. In a recent interview on the Grace and Steel podcast, American Renaissance Chairman

 

Jared Taylor denounced the Alt-Right for its vulgarity, and I was left asking myself:

“Is victory less important than upholding a social decorum?”

 

Of course, in my opinion, it absolutely is not.

 

This is about survival. We must win by any means necessary, or we will cease to exist.

 

_____________________

 

Further Reading:

 

Alt-Right Mission: Creating a Subculture Which Becomes the Dominant Culture

 

Comments

Originally published at: http://www.dailystormer.com/alt-right- mission-creating-a-subculture-which-becomes-the-dominant-culture/ Andrew Anglin Daily Stormer August 24, 2016 We constantly hear about how retarded Americans are about world events, and how Europeans are so much more clever, but here you have street interviews with Germans in Munich who know absolutely nothing about what is going on in The Ukraine. They vaguely believe Putin is to blame for whatever it is that is going on, but …

 

 

 

The Ideology and Values of the Alt-Right

top

 

The ideology and values of the Alt-Right are reactionary, formed in opposition to the modern Jewish norms. This effectively becomes a “traditionalist” perspective on society.

 

I will give a list of what I understand the mob to believe, on the whole. Of course, this will not necessarily include all of the people who currently identify as Alt-Right (and certainly will not include all of the websites I linked to above, many of which do not even identify as Alt-Right, though there is a lot of overlap).

 

Note: I will not include “opposition to political correctness,” as Milo has done, and will instead break down all aspects of political correctness and why the Alt- Right opposes them.

 

 

Anti-Semitism

top

 

The defining value of the movement and the foundation of its ideology is that the Jews are fundamentally opposed to the White race and Western civilization and so must be confronted and ultimately removed from White societies completely.

 

 

Jews are behind all of the things which we are against, the diametric opposite of everything that we stand for. In a very real sense, defeating and physically removing the Jews will solve every other problem. None of this would be happening if it were not for the Jews.

 

It is now fully documented that Jews are behind mass-immigration, feminism, the news media and Hollywood, pornography, the global banking system, global communism, the homosexual political agenda, the wars in the Middle East and virtually everything else the Alt-Right is opposed to. This is, to a shocking extent, simply admitted by the Jews themselves.

 

 

As such, the only way to end these problems is to strike the root and remove the Jews from our societies.

 

 

White Countries for White People

top

 

The end goal of the movement is to establish pure White racial states in all formerly White countries.

 

The current trend of non-White immigration into White countries will lead to a complete destruction of White culture, the White social order and ultimately an extermination of the White race.

 

We believe in mass deportations of all non-White immigrants, regardless of whether or not they were born here. This would include, in America, a repatriation to Africa of the descendants of slaves (or an allocation of autonomous territory for them within our current borders).

 

 

Scientific Racism

top

 

The Alt-Right does not accept the pseudo-scientific claims that “all races are equal,” and instead looks to the real science of race which shows that they have vastly different abilities, drives and intelligence levels.

 

 

Additionally, the Alt-Right views the Jews as a separate race, with biological drives and behavior patterns which come into direct conflict with the goals and values of the White race. Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s work examining the racial nature of Jews is considered crucial to understanding what the Alt-Right is about.

 

 

 

Opposition to Feminism and “Gender Equality” Support for Traditional Families

top

 

As with the claim that “all races are equal,” the claim that “men and women are equal” is looked at as entirely ridiculous by the Alt-Right. We believe in abolishing feminism and reestablishing traditional gender roles in society, a process which would involve sending women back to the home to produce and raise children, largely removing them from the workplace.

 

 

The Alt-Right is opposed to homosexuality, as well as the emasculation of men through denying them their traditional role in society.

 

 

Endorsement of White History

top

 

The Alt-Right celebrates the greatness of our ancestors and the glory of our historical achievements. Rejecting revisionist arguments by modern social scientists which portray Whites as having wrought evil on the planet, we view Whites as the creators and maintainers of Western civilization.

 

 

We pride ourselves in doing the best we can to pick-up the ball that the baby boomers dropped when they sold-out the entire history of our people for feel-good nonsense.

 

 

Cultural Normalization

top

 

Beyond simply restoring the family, the Alt-Right seeks to restore balance to society more broadly. This includes using authoritarian measures to deal with addictive drugs, pornography, crime and other degenerate social ills.

 

 

Common Sense Economics

top

 

Though the focus of the Alt-Right is almost entirely on social and cultural issues, presumably due to the fact that technological developments have made economic issues much less relevant, we do believe that economics should follow basic common sense.

 

If we were to physically remove Jews, however, this would probably fall into place naturally.

 

 

Right now, scarcity of resources is nigh entirely artificial, brought on by the crony capitalist system which has created the massive wealth gap, allowing a tiny minority to hoard wealth. Along with this, the trade deals which have allowed for our industry to be exported to the third world are opposed.

 

Most in the movement would support a type of free market socialism.

 

 

 

The White Struggle as a Global Battle

top

 

The Alt-Right views the struggle for the continued existence of the White race as a global battle between Whites and the Jews. The internet has allowed for us to connect globally with as much ease as we can connect to someone down the street or in the next room, and this has fostered a sense of worldwide unity of cause for White people.

 

 

Our problems are all nearly identical, the only difference being that we are dealing with different groups of non-Whites. There is a sense that either we are all going to win, or we’re all going to lose, and this creates a powerful sense of camaraderie across nations and continents.

 

 

 

Our Memes

top

 

As has been clumsily discussed at some length by the media, memes are a big part of the Alt-Right culture. These images and slogans comprise not only an attempt, but a successful attempt, to formulate a new culture for ourselves, separate from the mainstream culture, which is largely the result of Jewish social imperialism.

 

For the purpose of trying to give a better understanding of the nature of this new culture the movement has produced, I will give a list of examples of memes which, far from exhaustive, should allow those unfamiliar with the Alt-Right to get a basic idea of the headspace people in the movement inhabit. It is a place where irony and vulgarity meet conscious idealism, futurism and a deep reverence for objective, scientific data.

 

Many or most of these originated on 4chan, some of them having not been initially associated with anything necessarily political.

 

 

Pepe

top

 

 

Pepe is by far the most covered meme in this media storm which has taken place around the Alt-Right. He is a cartoon frog, who has served as the movement’s mascot.

 

Pepe became the mascot (he wasn’t “chosen” by anyone, except the meme-mob, which is everyone) because he embodies the goal of couching idealism within irony. A movement which meets all of the SPLC’s definitions of Neo-Nazi White Supremacism using a cartoon frog to represent itself takes on a subversive power to bypass historical stereotypes of such movements, and thus present the ideas themselves in a fun way without the baggage of Schindler’s List and American History X.

 

 

Bane

top

 

 

Bane is the villain from the film The Dark Knight Rises, the final installment of Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy.

 

The film, while aesthetically beautiful, was written by a Jew, with the villain Bane in many ways embodying the Jewish nightmare of fascism. The Alt-Right has adopted this character as a secondary mascot because of his character as a strongman, taking down an oppressive liberal-democratic system and attempting to establish an authoritarian-populist social order.

 

Other villains from popular Jewish-produced culture are also sometimes used within the Alt-Right meme culture for the same reason.

 

 

Normie

top

 

 

“Normie” is a term used to refer to individuals who have not yet joined the Alt-Right, remaining trapped in the mental-prison of the Jewish system. These people are viewed as being incapable of objectively processing information, and will instead revert to programmed slogans whenever they are presented with ideas that conflict with their synthetic value system.

 

 

Dindu Nuffin

top

 

 

When arrested, Black people will often use the phrase, “I didn’t do nothing” when exclaiming their professed innocence. The term is used to mock the assertion by both Blacks themselves and the Jewish dominated media that Black people are not responsible for their own behavior, as well as the failure of Blacks to use standard English.

 

 

Shitlord

top

 

 

The term “shitlord” was allegedly used initially by SJWs as an insult to racists and misogynists. I don’t personally remember it as an insult, however, given that it was so quickly taken on by the Alt-Right and used as a term of endearment and pride. This is an example of Alinsky’s instruction to own insults and thus remove their power (another example would be what happened when the Clinton campaign tried to popularize the #DangerousDonald meme).

 

 

Cuck

top

 

 

Another meme that the media has paid attention to, “Cuck” is short for “cuckold,” which is a man whose wife is cheating on him or a sexual fetish (and porn genre) involving a White man who enjoys seeing his wife have sex with Black men.

 

“Cuck” (or “Cuckservative,” if one is referring to a cuck who identifies as “conservative”) is applied to Whites who relish in giving away the resources of their people to foreigners. The term applies to Whites who support mass immigration, support Black Lives Matter or support Israel.

 

 

White Genocide

top

 

 

 

“White Genocide” refers to the idea, often supported by the UN’s Genocide Convention, that flooding White nations with non-Whites amounts to a form of calculated genocide against a racial group.

 

The Daily Stormer poster WhiteGenocideTM, who was cited in Hillary Clinton’s Alt-Right speech, was retweeted by Donald Trump, thus propelling the term into popular consciousness. Regrettably, there seems to be some confusion as to what the term means, with some (Clinton included, apparently) seemingly believing it is a call for Whites to commit a genocide(s), rather than drawing attention to the fact a genocide is being committed against us.

 

 

We wuz Kangz

top

 

 

“We wuz Kangz” is a mockery of the Afrocentric anthropological claim that Blacks are the descendants ancient Egyptian kings. The phrase is used to mock the ineptitude of Blacks, and their continued claims that all of their endless failures are the result of White people oppressing them out of hatred for the color of their skin, rather than an innate biological incapacity to compete in White society.

 

 

Le Happy Merchant

top

 

 

Le Happy Merchant is a Jewish caricature used to represent all Jews. It is used for the purpose of dehumanizing the Jew as a type of evil monster, rather than a human being, while also being very funny in its offensiveness. The character is used in a series of DIY comic strips as a diabolical villain tricking and abusing a good-natured but obese and dimwitted American (Le American Bear), as well as a whole lot of other memes. It has proven to be extremely effective in portraying Jews as an alien other, in the way the much more serious NSDAP anti-Semitic propaganda did in the 1930’s.

 

 

1488

top

 

 

“1488” is an old skinhead and White Nationalist battle-cry. “14” refers to the 14 words coined by David Lane:

 

“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”

 

With 88 being an 88 word paragraph from Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, volume 1, chapter 8:

 

“What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. Every thought and every idea, every doctrine and all knowledge, must serve this purpose. And everything must be examined from this point of view and used or rejected according to its utility.”

 

“88” can also mean “Heil Hitler,” as “H” is the 8th letter of the alphabet.

 

The Alt-Right certainly believes in these principles, but also uses the number ironically – it is a bit of self-depreciating humor, comparing ourselves to previous incarnations of the White Nationalist movement which are potentially viewed as low-brow.

 

 

Holohoax

top

 

 

The Jewish Holocaust is viewed as the foundation upon which the modern system of White guilt was built, used by the Jewish-dominated establishment as a club to beat in the skulls of anyone who dares stand-up and claim that Whites have a right to their own countries.

 

The absurd assertion – either plainly stated or directly implied – is that whenever Whites organize for their own interests, they begin exterminating people. As such, the Jewish declaration of “Never Again” is taken to imply that there will never again be a White country.

 

The only way to subvert the Jewish obsession with bringing up the Holocaust whenever any White person claims they have a right to exist is to viciously mock the story, in large part by pointing out that they have yet to produce any physical evidence that it actually happened. Beyond laughing about the fact that Jews are such chronic liars that they invented a story about millions of people being gassed in fake shower rooms and made into furniture and cleaning products, the Alt-Right also asserts that if it had happened, it would have been justified due to the collective behavior of the Jews.

 

The mockery of the Holocaust fits into the theory that you cannot win by apologizing, as apologizing is the realm of losers.

 

 

(((Echoes)))

top

 

 

A couple years ago, The Right Stuff began using a foot-pedal on their podcast to cause the names of Jews to echo. This was accompanied by the triple parentheses around the names of Jewish people or organizations. A Chrome app was created which would add the parentheses around the names of these Jewish people and organizations.

 

Earlier this year, the symbol was finally recognized by the Jews themselves, and they attempted to “own it” by voluntarily adding the parentheses to their names on Twitter. It was bizarre.

 

 

KEK

top

 

 

Kek is the apotheosis* of Pepe, who at some point in the future will travel back in time to become an Egyptian god of trolling. I am not going to elaborate much on it here, as the subject is too complex and esoteric, but the Alt-Right is in the process of forming an actual religious doctrine around the god Kek, who is believed to be the spiritual root of meme magick.

[*Apotheosis is the glorification of a subject to divine level and most commonly, the treatment of a human like a god. The term has meanings in theology, where it refers to a belief, and in art, where it refers to a genre.]

 

Nirvana Fallacy

top

 

 

In February of 2015, this writer criticized the YouTuber Sargon of Akkad for blaming political correctness, rather than race, for the Pakistani rape gangs which operated for decades with impunity in Rotherham, England. Akkad responded to the criticism, with a video attacking me and defending Pakistani immigration to the UK. In it, he cited several fallacies found on Wikipedia, including the “Nirvana Fallacy,” saying that this particular fallacy meant that if these girls had not been drugged, gang-raped and trafficked by Pakistani men, “White British men” would have done it (it was implied that it would have happened in the exact same way, to the same girls, by Whites, making it appear as though he was presenting some type of metaphysical concept relating to divine predestination).

 

Since then, this writer and others have jokingly reminded people whenever a terrorist attack, gang-rape, mass sex attack, or plain old brutal murder is committed by an immigrant or a Black that if they hadn’t done it, White British men would have.

 

For example:

 

“If a North African Moslem wouldn’t have run over those people in Nice for Allah, a White British man would have” or “if a gang of Blacks hadn’t kidnapped that 17-year-old White girl in Myrtle Beach and gang-raped her for days before shooting her and feeding her to alligators, White British men would have.”

 

The meme is designed to mock the ridiculousness of the liberal/ progressive/SJW/Jew assertion that all races are exactly the same.

 

 

Sam Hyde

top

 

 

Sam Hyde is a comedian, who has dedicated his life to viciously mocking the Alt-Right and other right-wing groups.

 

At some point, someone on Twitter got the idea of posting the image of “White Supremacist Sam Hyde” as an announcement of a shooter’s identity during a mass shooting or terrorist event. The concept was to mock the Jewish media’s assumption that whenever a killing happens, the culprit is White, despite the fact that this is almost never true. The rule proved true, as repeatedly, the media would retweet and even publish reports based on the tweets.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzhza1V9oBU

 

During the Black Lives Matter protests at Mizzou, this writer managed to convince tens of thousands of Black people that Sam Hyde was a KKK leader on campus lynching Blacks. This writer was permanently banned from Twitter for this particular stunt.

 

 

GTK-RWN

top

 

 

“GTK-RWN” stands for:

 

“Gas The Kikes – Race War Now!”

 

It is used ironically to mock the idea that anyone who supports White interests is a genocidal maniac.

 

 

“Vibrant Diversity”

top

 

“Vibrant diversity” and “cultural enrichment” are terms which have been used with a straight-face by the Jewish establishment to refer to mass non-White immigration into White countries. The terms have been adopted by the Alt-Right to refer to rapes, mass-murders, terrorist attacks, etc. committed by non-Whites in White countries.

 

This is a means to point out that there is literally no tangible benefit, whatsoever, to bringing primitive third-world people into White countries, as well as the utterly unfathomable levels of dishonesty used in the promotion of the immigration agenda.

 

 

Anime

top

 

 

Anime images are widely used as a part of the aesthetic of the Alt-Right. This is in part due to the fact that many people within the Alt-Right genuinely enjoy watching Anime, as it is viewed as a form of video entertainment which exists outside of the corrosive cultural norms created and promoted by the Jews who dominate the Western entertainment media.

 

It is also used ironically by many who may not necessarily watch much Anime, because it is funny to associate hardcore racism and a love for Adolf Hitler with cute cartoons. This serves to take the edge off the portrayal of anyone who questions the ethnic cleansing of Whites as evil.

 

It is also notable that Japan is generally viewed very positively as a nation and a people throughout the Alt-Right, due to their relatively high culture and their passion for defending it.

 

 

 

RetroWave

top

 

 

RetroWave (also known as Synthwave) has become the preferred music choice of many members of the Alt-Right. It is electronic music with a 1980’s aesthetic, with influences mainly drawn from the soundtracks of films of that time.

 

The 80’s is when most of the members of the Alt-Right were born, and we have a fondness for the optimism that embodied that era. It is often pointed out that the visions of the future given to the people through the media of that era have been abandoned in favor of a policy of third-worldizing the first world through mass third-world immigration.

 

This makes it impossible that the high-technology utopia we were promised by 80’s entertainment culture could ever be realized. RetroFuturism fits very well with the “we want our future back” theme of the Alt-Right.

The genre is small at present, mostly associated with the NewRetroWave YouTube channel. The Synthwave artist ~ C Y B E R N Δ Z I ~ is currently producing original White Identity-oriented music, and I predict that this will become more and more of a trend in the future, as this genre becomes to the Alt-Right what punk was to the skinhead movement.

 

 

“It’s [Current Year]”

top

 

 

Another meme that the media has taken note of, “it’s [current year]” makes a mockery of the SJW catchphrase going something like:

 

“I can’t believe that we still have [insert something] – it’s [current year].”

 

The idea behind these statements when made by SJWs is that certain ideas cannot be accepted due to the level of social development we’ve allegedly undergone over the past decades. They often use the statement, however, to promote policies which are viewed by the Alt-Right as the opposite of social progress, such as mass Islamic immigration or allowing Black people to attack cops.

 

 

 

“Leaders” of the Alt-Right and the Media’s Fake Narrative

top

 

The concept of the movement having “leaders” is a very recent invention of the media. In order to support this, they have invented an alternate history of the movement, which focuses on people who are only peripheral to the Alt-Right, and may in fact be opposed to its core narrative.

 

None of these men is the leader. And yes, that includes the guy in the middle.

 

This presumably represents both a desire on the part of the establishment to define the movement on their own terms, as well as a fundamental incapacity to understand what is actually going on, believing that political movements must have leaders and a direct line of “thinkers” which can be traced back to various people influencing various other people who promoted various specific ideas.

Milo’s Breitbart piece, “Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right” (co-written with Allum Bokhari), being the first “guide” to the movement written, is serving as a basis for the narrative being presented by the media. This combines with the opinions of “hate experts” from the SPLC and the ADL to form a contrived and largely nonsensical forced “history of the Alt-Right,” complete with forced leaders who had little or nothing to do with the ideological and spiritual journeys of most people who make up the movement.

 

Much of this confusion is built on the term “Alt-Right” itself, which was allegedly coined by the Jew Paul Gottfried in 2008 and then used as the name of Richard Spencer’s new-defunct blog.

 

Paul Gottfried, the Jew who supposedly coined the term “Alternative Right”

 

The term “Alt-Right” came into wide, common use to describe the confluence of dissidents very recently, and has virtually nothing whatsoever to do with the Jew who allegedly coined the term, and much more to do with the way it sounds and the way the internet works. That is to say, people thought the term fit the movement, and when people began using the term on Twitter with the #altright hashtag, and then in blogs, it caught on, with people accepting that the term was being used to define what they believe. This happened less than a year ago, while the movement itself has been forming for several years.

 

The term “Alt-Right” itself is what the Jewish media is manipulating to use to redefine the movement along terms that it understands. They are tracing the origin of the term, and equating this to the origins of the movement. Which would mean that the movement was founded by a Jew, something which the media is probably comfortable with.

 

The media has been promoting Jared Taylor, Richard Spencer and Milo himself as the “leaders” of the movement.

 

The Daily Caller recently labeled Jared Taylor “the intellectual godfather of the Alt-Right.”

 

The first two individuals have both done great work contributing to the struggle of the White race, I just don’t personally see as though they’ve had overly much direct influence on the mob, which is the heart of the Alt-Right. That having been said, I am not opposed to having either of these men represent the Alt-Right in the media, necessarily, but I do fear that they will serve to remove focus from the Jewish problem. I absolutely believe that unrepentant anti-Semitism needs to remain at the core of the movement, just as it has been from the beginning.

 

There is also the problem that neither of these men has attempted to assert leadership by forming an organization with a clear political platform. Jared Taylor has mainly focused on statistical data regarding race; I’m not familiar with any political material Taylor has written. I was also deeply concerned to see a recent interview with Taylor in the Jewish Daily Forward where he was presented as a leader of the Alt-Right and claiming that the movement is not against Jews and is actually reaching out to them and inviting them to join up. I believe virtually every single member of the movement would take very serious issue with.

 

Though I am not as familiar with the work of Richard Spencer, he doesn’t appear to have any specific political positions. Looking into him after he has received all of this media attention recently, I watched a 25 minute video he made entitled “What is the Alt-Right?” and I was left without any understanding whatsoever of how he defines the term, let alone any political positions he holds. I am also extremely uncomfortable with Spencer’s apparent support for radical homosexual movements – one of the few positions which I have heard him be very straightforward about – and do not see this as jiving at all with the basic culture and values of the Alt-Right.

 

Richard Spencer has invited Jack Donovan to his conferences and publicly defended him. Donovan is a radical homosexual who has written on the internet about “fucking men like they were women” and specifically targeting men with “daddy issues.”

 

That having been said, both Taylor and Spencer are genuine people, and they may in the future present political positions in line with those of the mob and serve as a rallying point for the movement. However, until they do present political positions, declaring them leaders of a political movement is frankly ridiculous.

 

Milo, on the other hand, is a subversive and a disease. A homosexual Jew, he jumped on the movement a few months ago and was promoted by the entire media, propelled as the representative of the “official movement.” He has introduced a bizarre narrative where no one in the Alt-Right actually believes anything that they are saying, and simply say it as part of some obscure joke.

 

 

In the past weeks, he has been promoted to celebrity status, apparently for the purpose of trying to cleanse the movement of anyone who actually believes anything. It is a bizarre situation, having someone claim to represent us, while presenting positions which are directly contrary to our core beliefs.

 

What he has done is adopt the tone of the movement, endorsing certain less important positions, while also serving as the tone-police, attempting to shut out the real heart of the movement by denouncing them as “fringe.” In his Breitbart piece, he claimed, among other things, that the Alt-Right has no problem with race-mixing or Jews, but simply mocks them because they oppose political correctness. In his piece, he dug-up people who actually are fringe members of the movement, and used them to attempt to redefine the movement.

 

It is also noteworthy that he somehow forgot to mention the Daily Stormer, despite the fact that this site gets more traffic than all other Alt-Right websites combined.

 

It is plain as anything that Milo is attempting to use the movement – which is hip, rebellious and edgy – in order to transform himself into a counter-culture icon.

 

This all having been said, though I do find the situation outrageous, there is no real threat that Milo is going to take anything over. In fact, his newly-earned celebrity status has resulted in a huge backlash, with the mob enraged that he is openly and publicly lying about what the movement is, effectively defaming us, while shamelessly using our hard work and achievements for his own personal agenda.

 

 

_______________

 

Further Reading:

 

Can’t Kike the Alt-Right (With Questions for Milo Yiannopoulos)

 

Comments

 

Originally published at: http://www.dailystormer.com/cant-kike-the- alt-right-with-questions-for-milo-yiannopoulos/ Andrew Anglin Daily Stormer April 7, 2016 [photo] I have already written a detailed response to the Breitbart article by Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos, “An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right.” But as this is the beginning of a massive assault on our burgeoning movement, I have spent a lot of time thinking about it, and would like to add further thoughts. …

 

 

 

The Future of the Alt-Right

top

 

To become a real and effective political force, the Alt-Right will need real leaders. Real leaders are not people that stand-up and claim to be leaders, but people that the masses naturally want to follow.

 

We will need a platform which allows us to organize and collectively promote our agenda. This may be in the form of a political party, or it may be through an organization which acts to influence the existing Republican party. We need real organization, and it needs to be based on a platform which is approved by the mob.

 

As far as I understand the mob, the points which I laid out in the “ideology and values” section of this piece would pretty much be universally agreed on by it, and should so serve as the basis for any organized political platform.

 

Besides, these are the positions that got us to where we are now, and there is no reason to believe they won’t continue to gain wider and wider acceptance among the people. In fact there is much reason to believe they will continue to spread, exponentially, just as they have been, until a large portion of the White demographic holds these positions. Toning down the message, however, serves absolutely no strategic purpose. It would cause the movement to lose momentum and it wouldn’t increase appeal.

 

If Trump wins, we are going to have an opportunity to directly influence his administration, if we organize ourselves properly and develop a cohesive constituency (the latter we already have, I’d estimate numbering at 4-6 million people).

 

If Trump loses, we are going to have an opportunity to very vocally blame the Jews for his loss, which will serve our purposes nearly as much as a Trump win.

 

Either way, the future is very bright.

 

As long as everyone involved keeps doing exactly what they’re doing right now, we can only continue to expand. There is no other option. Our ideas are winning.

 

The only threat of failure is if in trying to go mainstream we decide to compromise. However, because of the nature of this internet-based movement, where the mob has a very real voice and can say it loudly when they disagree with the direction something is going in, there is not any real chance anyone pushing a compromise could be successful.

 

We already have a situation where anyone trying to go soft gets e-lynched for it, and that isn’t going away.

 

Whatever the end result of our great work is, I know this for certain:

 

History will remember us.

 

 

Hail Victory!

 

 

 

 

_________________________

 

 

See Also

top

 

 

=====================================

 

 

PDF Download

top

 

PDF Notes

 

* Total words = 8,787

* Total pages = 78

* Total images = 47

 

Click to download a PDF (78 pages (illustrated)) of this post (5.0 MB).

 

Daily Stormer – A Normie’s Guide to the Alt-Right – Ver 3

 

 

 

 

_____________________

 

 

Version History

top

 

 

Version 7: Jul 31, 2020 — Added Table of Contents with links.

 

Version 6: Feb 23, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

 

Version 5: Aug 25, 2017 — Added missing images. Fixed some typos.

 

Version 4: Aug 23, 2017 — Added the whole text of the Guide.

 

Version 3: Sep 5, 2016 — Improved PDF (Ver 3). Added missing image and link (Sam Hyde); improved formatting; added “Further Reading” in two chapters. [With thanks to B.Bitterburg from The Daily Stormer.]

 

Version 2: Sep 4, 2016 — Improved PDF (Ver 2). Added links in Contents; formatting [with thanks to B.Bitterburg from Daily Stormer].

 

Version 1: Sep 4, 2016 — Created post.