Is the term “white nationalist” a slur? How about “white supremacist?” The general definition of a slur is “an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation.” For “white nationalist” to be a slur, the term itself would have to be generally accepted as immoral or derogatory. It would also have to be used in a way that incorrectly labels one a white nationalist. Calling Greg Johnson, a white nationalist, for example, is not a slur. He embraces the label.
The interpretation of the term white nationalist is just one interesting aspect of the lawsuit brought by Peter Brimelow, editor of VDare. He is suing the New York Times, according to Brimelow, for falsely labeling him a white nationalist. He not only denies being a white nationalist, he claims the company deliberately labeled him as such in an effort to damage his reputation, even after he made many good faith attempts to point out the error to them. He is seeking $5 million in damages.
That is the first interesting angle to this case. Intent is always a central part of defamation cases. The defendant must be shown to have intentionally libeled or slandered the other party. The statement must have been made with knowledge that it was untrue or with reckless disregard for the truth. Simply making an honest error is not defamation, which is why newspapers have always posted corrections. It allows them to show the false claim was an honest error.
Another interesting bit of this is the unspoken dispute over what exactly makes someone a white nationalist. Greg Johnson, for example, has written a book describing white nationalism. He calls himself a white nationalist. Peter Brimelow, in contrast, has never used to term to describe himself and has been generally negative toward the use of it as a label. No doubt both men share similar opinions on many matters, but they have many important differences as well.
Yoram Hazony has written a book promoting nationalism. He is a proud Zionist and an ethno-nationalist. Large swaths of his book match up well with the arguments made by Greg Johnson in favor of white nationalism. In fact, strip away the references to Israel and the Jews and Hazony’s book is the same argument made by Johnson. Does that make Hazony a white nationalist? Is white nationalism just another manifestation of nationalism, like Zionism or black nationalism?
If this case ever makes it to court, it would be an easy task to show a jury that the term white nationalist is undefined. Its meaning is entirely controlled by the intent of the person using it. When used by the New York Times, the intent is purely negative, perhaps even a synonym for evil. When used by normal people, it is more benign, maybe even positive. In other words, the definition is entirely one of context, which is the heart of the lawsuit against the Times.
That would be an amusing part of this case if it gets to the deposition phase, as everyone involved would have to define white nationalism. Brimelow would have no trouble giving an objective definition. The Times writers and editors would have to figure out a way to craft a definition that puts someone like Peter Brimelow at the same table as Johnson. That’s a circle that cannot be squared, without first asserting the promotion of white interests is negative.
That really is the secret that lies beneath all of this. The underlying assumption of the beautiful people at the New York Times is that white people have no right to promote their interests. Jews, blacks, one-legged trans-lesbians of color, all of these groups have interests and a right to promote them openly. Whites, according to the sorts working for the Times, have no group interests. Therefore, white nationalism is the assertion of something false, for malign purposes.
Now, there is yet another twist to this. From the perspective of someone like Greg Johnson, Brimelow’s suit against the Times can be seen as damaging the cause of white nationalism. The basis of the suit is that the Times deliberately libeled Brimelow by applying a derogatory term to him and his work. In other words, a putative ally is agreeing with the enemy that white nationalism is immoral. That further anathematizes the term and the issues associated with it.
In reality, that train has left the station. In fact, that is another important issue involved in this case and many others. The media is not simply an institution for disseminating factual information about people and events. No sane person would make such a claim, as the media repeatedly states otherwise. The mass media defines the public debate and largely defines public morality. When they pronounce something forbidden, like white nationalism, it usually becomes immoral and off-limits.
That brings us back to intent. There simply is no way the Times can claim they did not intend to libel Brimelow when they called him a white nationalist. There only hope is to conjure a definition of white nationalism that includes Brimelow along with other people, who sharply disagree with him. The only way to accomplish that is to broaden the term to mean any white person, who thinks white people have interests. In other words, merely being white makes you guilty enough in this case.
Finally, this case can be a useful on-ramp. These people are clever, in that they talk about whites in a negative way without directly addressing white people. In this case they have turned the phrase white nationalism into a purely negative term that they liberally apply to white people questioning orthodoxy. They don’t say whites are evil, but they regular claim “whiteness” is evil and that promoting it is immoral. They condemn the thing by condemning its nature.
In the end, this case can only be a net positive, assuming Brimelow and VDare don’t embarrass themselves in some unforeseen manner. Cases like this are a good way to raise this issue. The more people talk about how the Left systematically anathematizes the natural characteristics of white people, the more people will notice the blood libel at the heart of this case and the general war on white people. The reason the Times hates white nationalism is they hate white people.
For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!
The way of the tribe!!!
You know who’s really f*cked in all this?
The mixed people or the talented 10 who want to live in the white world.
They’d do well to become “white nationalists” in a hurry. Because, mate, where would you rather live-as a tolerated minority in Japan or as just one of the crowd in, say, actual, real Lagos?
Ted Sallis makes a couple of interesting points, esp. re the role of the Northwest Euros in the “white nationalism” thing: http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2020/01/whos-white-nationalist.html
If the “white peepo” had power today and that would need to include being led by the exclusively ethnic European elite, they’d simply call themselves “Europeans” meaning “mean white nationalists” and to hell with the rest.
It’s not only about White nationalism if that actually exist in the United States
Even stupidest of most can recognize that term “white people” became ethnic slur
it describes that something immoral or being flawed
Now, it’s never ending, “white” ethnic slur become big assumption that identical at what Hollywood assume about white
Assumption that white were the one who unfit to the norm society
for that reason, mass immigration and race-mixing are mandatory required
Rule of Law and gravity itself upside down
if some old men thought black riot in 60s was apocalyptic
This is beyond apocalypse or post apocalypse
This is Post-Post-Post apocalypse
Cheerio and ooga-booga from Cuck Island.
Things are looking rather cucky already this fine morning. I was informed by the gentleman checking muh US passport that I should “go anywhere I want and enjoy the country – not that easy in yours, is it?”
If only, Limey Cucksworth.
Mind you this Merkelista was the only descendant of Longshanks within eyeshot. From his smarmy desk to the Starbucks, an odyssey of a walk, his was the only White face I saw.
There are more bearded men in this airport than the Dome of the Rock. And the whole coffee shop staff sounds more Russian than the girls who served me at Pulkovo a few hours ago.
I kid you not, the guy in front of me was being solicitously advised that he should only use his Russian passport for exiting Russia, and present his Israeli passport for entry to Fail Brittania.
No Snidely Cucklash repartee for the dual citizen, OFC. Just a jolly how-do.
Hopefully Ivan Replace-you-vich-berg will be entertaining the customs lackey’s daughters later this evening.
As much as I would like to stay and claim some duplicitously-asserted prima nocte rights as an American Ashkepath ambassador, the fawning fail of this former nation-turned-hotel has soured my gorge.
Just when you think nothing would make you miss homey-sweet home HellA, it pulls you back in.
This place sucks. Let it burn.
Putin should begin the conquest of the West here. One squad of Spetznaz sh*t-cossacks could take this place armed with a cue-ball in a sock.
I have been thinking for a while now that Russia may be the place where the white man has his own nation. As I understand it, Russia is very white, very traditional, and very Christian. Perhaps white makes a stand there?
By the way, Russians were tried by the fire of Communism. They may be much stronger for it.
Yes, but apart from that…..
John Jay in Federalist 2 promoted the culture, language and religion of the English colonists as the foundation for the US Constitution. So were the writers of the Constitution white nationalists?
I like and use the terms White Preservationist, or White Conservationist. White nationalist is fine as well – what I think people may hear though is that White Nationalist = White Supremacist even though the terms have different meanings.
OT for day 3ish my Goygle gayphone feed wants me to thank the NSA for finding security flaws in muh Windows. Just Noticing.
Is the term “white nationalist” a slur? How about “white supremacist?” —- Zman
—–
These terms both mean “racist” to the vast majority of people in the US. I might even go so far that saying that “white supremacist” is even worse and that it might mean “racist who wants to kill a lot of non-whites”.
My take on “racist” has been that everyone is a racist. Everyone. Simply, everyone notices that race exists and prefers their own race over others. 4 million years of evolution has crafted us to notice differences and to feel safer around our own kind. Many wild animals feel the same way I think.
We must convince whitey that there is not a damn thing wrong with noticing that the “others” is not as preferable to be around as his own kind. American Blacks sure feel that way. Why not whites?
Brimelow suing for a measly 5 million is a good show of his reasonable White mentality. It’s comical in a way.
He probably expects a good hardy handshake as well.
Yes. Sadly, Whites want to be reasonable and fair. That trait is always used against them
PS: I did not down-vote Paintersforsms.
Trying without success to “reply” to Paintersforms.
You are confused. Democracy is not now and never has been an attempt to make government peaceful. You have been successfully propagandized; that’s all. Democracy is the system of government through which a very small but very well-organized minority rules over a large but very unorganized majority. That is all.
You are right that the media propagandize the masses, but they do so for the same reason that we have “elections.” The purpose is singular: Elections are to provide the tiny ruling class with the illusion of legitimacy. That’s why the media propagandize us constantly with slogans like “The American people have spoken” and so on. But democracy has nothing whatsoever to do with governing in peace. It is simply to furnish the looters with the illusion of legitimacy. That is all.
Is there an alternative to democracy, or representative government in general, that you prefer?
I agree with your criticism of democracy, yet can’t think of a better means of government than a representative government with a highly restricted franchise. Of course, people like Z have pointed out the constant temptation to broaden the franchise, which eventually devolves into democracy.
In what system DOESN’T a small minority rule over the majority??
I don’t know if this has been said because the threads have gotten so long, but there is a difference between what vdare is pedaling and counter currents. Vdare is paleo conservative, anti immigration which seeks to preserve the historic American nation, which did contain a lot of blacks, Hispanics and others. Admittedly not shrinking the white percentage is the foremost desire there, but vdare does not advocate deporting anyone. Johnson I believe seeks a white state, where there would be no or few minorities. Cc is revolutionary in spirit, while vdare is conservative. There is large philosophical overlap, but there is a difference between the two, so I don’t think Brimelow is renouncing or impugning white nationalists when he says that. I think the issue with vdare may be preserving its tax protected status, but I don’t understand all those things well.
I don’t know about you guys but I am white. I am a Nationalist. I live in New Hampshire which, along with Vermont, Maine and our Leaf neighbors to the North make up a sizable White Ethnostate. I serve white well-being.
When I get into an argument with a liberal here in Europe (and trust me, you can’t swing a dead cat and not hit one) when they realize they’re losing the argument, their default response is to call me a member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
I smile, look them straight in the eye and reply, “You’re right, I am. And when we’re in charge again, which we will be soon enough, your’s will be the first set of fingernail marks on the wall.”
That usually shuts them up.
Karl, add that, “we are everywhere, you have no idea how many of us there are”, and make them wake up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night, now and again. It’s always fun to throw a little chum into the pool of paranoia once in a while.
Karl – Love it! I tell them “Yes, you’re right. I’m literally Hitler. See my horns growing here?” Agree and amplify is always a good tactic.
Since it’s law-sperg day, I’ll throw this out there.
Another tactical issue for Based litigants. Avoid bench trials – demand a jury (in almost all circumstances where you can – circumstances vary, get advice accordingly – disclaimer rendered).
A judge already has enough power to wreck a solid case in a jury trial, most notably by summary judgment before there’s even a jury to worry about.
For Our Cases, the judge is more likely than a jury to simply rule that “you lose b/c reasons.” Their decisions, no matter how ridiculous or contrived, are given a vast amount of leeway on appeal and there is virtually no accountability for ridiculously crooked decisions unless you find a smoking gun of corruption (good luck).
Play the percentages and hope that enough BadThinkers or outright nuts land on the jury and see things any way but how Shlomo wants. Unless the judge is your secret rayciss pool-party pal, go with a jury.
Z, you misunderstand a couple of the legal issues. If “white nationalist” is just a matter of opinion, thus incapable of being proven true or false (like “evil” or “stupid”), then Brimelow loses. Also, the relevant state of mind (what you call intent) is not intent to smear, but reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement (“actual malice” is somewhat misleading, it’s not actually malice). The judge will likely bend over backwards to treat statement as simply opinion, as in the Covington case. There the judge (ridiculously) said everything was opinion, and backtracked on just a couple of statements (e.g. the kid was blocking the Injun from moving, which clearly is not opinion). That ruling allowed the case to proceed to trial, thus the settlement. If Brimelow can proceed to trial, the risk to NYT and the pain of discovery (does the NYT want Brimelow’s team to look through all their emails?) may lead to settlement.
I also contradict myself a bit. The point I was trying to make was that the Times people can’t agree to the standard definition of the term, without conceding Brimelow’s basic point. He’s not a white nationalist.
Not my best post, but even Ted Williams struck out from time to time.
Ted Williams?? The ego on that guy!
Insert “he had a big head on him” joke here.
Ted Williams hit 521 home runs!
You can be held liable for true statements in some contexts and jurisdictions (MA, IIRC is one), and intent in Z’s stated context does matter.
Here’s an excerpt from a MN statute, for example:
_____
Subd. 3. Justification. Violation of subdivision 2 is justified if:
(1) the defamatory matter is true and is communicated with good motives and for justifiable ends…”
____
… and…
With this in mind, I’d be careful assuming that “the truth is always a defense.” If someone has AIDS or was convicted for beating their girlfriend, get some advice before you assume you’re safe.
Opinion is handled in various ways as well. I’ll spare everyone more legalese but suffice it to say that some statements (like calling someone a “Nazi”) are sufficiently malicious and defamatory that they go beyond mere opinion and the context of their publication and the identity of the publisher can lend enough gravitas to render them statements of fact – particularly if you are something like America’s Paper of Record with a well-promoted reputation for “fact-checking.”
Z, the dark beauty of law is that you’re almost never wrong even when you might think you are. Talmudry is magic, goy, and the more words in the world, the more (((tricks))) you can do.
“Talmudry is magic, goy”
Huh. The secret Talmudic messaging, hidden in religious themes, began as sorcery; curses and spells against us by the priestly pimps of Nanna-Sin, who sold whores in the temples of Ur.
Sex magic, in other words.
Against their customers.
Kings, soldiers, and traveling merchants.
Brothel magic. Here, try our beer.
(Or, prostitute magic- “he’s not f*king me, I’m f*king him”
The Aryan is the duped servant, the Janissary, the horse that serves the master)
I might disagree slightly on this one. I think Brimelow should just leave it alone.
To me it’s sort of like If your grandfather fought for the German Wehrmacht. By today’s standards he is a Nazi and always will be a Nazi.
Nothing you bring public will change that.
Drawing attention to media definitions by our own side or people who lean our way like Brimelow has little value in my mind.
Now if instead of the President of VDare Brimelow was the chairman of the Republican Party then the naming games the media plays could have value to us.
All this does in my mind is risk Greg Johnson not being happy with Peter Brimelow, and we have enough infighting in our movement already. But that is just my opinion, I could be wrong, this could help us.
“…they talk about whites in a negative way without directly addressing white people”. That’s condescension, folks. Once pointed out, the object of the condescension will take grave offense, and a side will be taken. Try talking about any protected class of people in the third person plural, when a member of that class is present in the conversation, and note how things generally go from there. Understand this, and tactically use it to your advantage, either if you are the one speaking (mind your p’s and q’s) or if someone else is (call it out).
That “one sneaky trick” of theirs is to get all the protected classes to look out for each other. That means any conversation about any protected class of people, in the presence of a member of any other protected class (that’s everyone but the white male, folks), elicits the same accusatory reaction as if you spoke in the third person plural about the person actually in the room. Be aware of this and don’t fall into the trap.
Until Carlos Slim bought a controlling interest in the the Times, the paper was owned and run by the Jewish Ochs family. It’s still run by them. And when have Jews ever considered themselves to be white? Only when it suits their purposes. So will it suit their purposes in this case?
And when have Jews ever considered themselves to be white? Only when it suits their purposes. So will it suit their purposes in this case?
I’ve always wondered why nobody ever seem to draw affirmative action to its conclusion: if all races are to be equally represented in media, academia, politics and finance…
See where I’m going with this? When are we going to have lists plastered on campus with the socially just number of faculty members of each race?
Har! When are we finally going to get a representative cross-section of the population as airline pilots? The demand is deafening!
Forget airline pilots: sportsball!
I’ve occasionally amused myself with thoughts of filing suit against the NFL and the NBA demanding that 5% of their starting positions be reserved for Asians. And more importantly, an upper limit of 13% of positions occupied by blacks.
No proportional representation = no justice.
PS. Someone needs to sue the Minnesota Vikings for cultural appropriation. Check out the team roster. Do the majority of these men look Nordic?
https://www.vikings.com/team/players-roster/
How long is the line to get into Lagos or Nairobi for their heart operation?
The shape-shifting of you-know-who (White/not-White as occasion demands) is inoculated by the holo-thing and the other, mustachioed you-know-who. Current events threaten the inoculation, and that’s a major freak-out in motion that is hard for us to actually see going on.
There is good for us in all of this, as it opens the white normie’s eyes to, yes, he’s white, and he is being called evil for it. While some will cuck and soy out, the others have no place to go but in the vicinity of our direction. There is no other home for them, and everyone wants to go home, at the end of the day. Provide an emotional place for those lost souls to rest their heads, and they are ours.
It shows one the utter foolishness of some of our opposition. Why, in their right minds, would they want to wake up a white identity, for the sake of a few short term retribution sessions, maybe a few gibs, and the endorphin hit resulting from bashing an enemy over the head with something?
The longer time horizon opponents of ours are freaking out right now, because the curtain is being pulled back. Whites, one by one, are discovering they have agency in their lives. They realize they are not defined by the labels and judgements placed on them by those who hate their gender and their skin color. Whites still have some semblance of the rights of disassociation and self-protection. To be ostracized by a certain impolite “polite” society has a “bad boy” thing going for it, right there. People love bad boys, whether or not they can live with them in the long run.
There’s also this where it is apparently not textbook libel to call someone a leader in the KKK when they have never been even a member:
https://www.courthousenews.com/newspaper-cleared-radio-hosts-libel-claim-kkk-label/
(I don’t know if it will be appealed).
In another irony, one of the links was from “amren.com” and one of NextDNS’s lists blocked it, forcing me to – in no little irony – whitelist it.
The Tortious Interference suits are likely to work out better as they are based on objective action, not on ambiguous definitions.
Who is it that staffs and runs the NY Times again?
It’s a family-run Amish paper.
“All the barn-raisings that are fit to print”.
Sulzberger sounds German. Good Aryan folks at the NY Times.
If you ever deign to answer a loaded question or deny a loaded accusation you have already lost.
The purpose of a loaded question is that it is loaded or set up from the beginning to defeat you. The premise itself is a logical fallacy which is designed to rig any debate away from facts or logic to an unprovable religious or political worldview. You are always arguing from a defensive position based on a bs assumption.
A loaded question or fallacy is based on deductive vs inductive reasoning. In deductive arguments the answer is already baked into the premise of the question itself. It is built this way to make you lose by even engaging.
The classic example of this is “When did you stop beating your wife?” Even as a strong Democrat at the time I knew Nixon had already lost by stating, “I am not a crook.”
The premise of racism, white supremacy, white nationalism, whatever is that you are evil from the get go. You can’t wiggle out if you were born in original sin.
If you ever do defeat such an accusation the other side will simply come up with a different word. Don’t go there, you will only lose.
There is also the Breitbart response, “So?”, followed by silence. Trust me, it’s like the Ghostbusters crossing the laser beams.
That’s a great idea. I kind of do this now, but for now on, I’m going to very directly tell Joe Normie friends that the reason I don’t like XXX Party or politician is because they don’t like white people. It’ll accomplish two things.
1. It shows that white people are a people and that we have the right to defend ourselves.
2. It puts XXX Party or politician supporter on the defensive. They now have to show why XXX Party or politician don’t hate white people, which, of course, they can’t.
Ex, yeah. That’s where we got the pernicious concept of “White Privilege” cropping up a few years ago. Basically, they ran out of “Bad Whites” and real examples of racism or demonstrable prejudice against POC. Viola—White Privilege!
By dint of your existence, something discriminatory happens to a POC. Yes, you can’t help your color—but the privilege it gives to you is taken from someone else. So if you accept this “injustice” you are guilty—and if you are not punching with us, you are accepting of this injustice. Blood libel.
Seems ridiculous, I know, but it works. Look at all the race traitors in our midst. If White Guilt was once an advantage in a mono cultural, White, society, it is now definitely an evolutionary disadvantage in a multicultural society.
To the NYT, the word “white” is always a pejorative.
The only reason the ever use it is to cast the negative attributes of whiteness, which includes: ant-diversity, anti-equality, anti-multiculti, and racist. Even “white male” is used as an obviously negative descriptor.
The shorthand is always: It’s NOT okay to be white.
Which is why when those kids started putting up stickers suggesting otherwise, it was so effective.
The problem isn’t the courtroom posturing ahead, it is the court of public opinion. White people are terrified of their own whiteness
As for nationalism, I see the nationalism bit as just one of many ways they continue to bind whiteness to Nazis.
In the identity game, whites v. POCs is one thing, but if we allow whites to advocate for their interests we get 6^8.7106 reasons why that can’t be allowed to happen.
How is Jared Taylor’s suit against Twitter coming? Brimelow will do as well. I get it still is fighting back and getting your response out there, but a lot of effort for so little.
Of all that we face against our cause, the courts are the real nemesis. Trump surely knows that and I am not sure that if the right political appointments happened it would make a difference. People drawn to the law and politics will never help us in big enough numbers.
An appeals court in California sent it back to the first judge with instructions to amend the suit or dismiss it. I think that was the end of it for Taylor.
Law schools are the great enemy. A future revolution should make sure they are all destroyed.
Epa;
No, no, no. Law schools and universities in general are rich enemy resources ripe for plundering. You could pay off the national debt the same way Henry VIII did by seizing the monasteries and Church lands.
Sounds like a variant of destruction. I’m in.
Not sure we need to destroy anything. I suspect, “loser pays” will take the incentive out of most suits. Perhaps followed by a tightening of “standing” to sue—which would include removing such from current Federal and State statutes (ex. ADA).
Think about “loser pays” in depth for an hour or so and you see obvious downsides
Lawfare cuts both ways.
Guys who can’t afford lawyers (keep at least 5-10k handy & plan for $25k-$50k by trial for basic bitch small time stuff) are the Muppet in the famous curbside ZeroHedge pic.
Sit on the defense side of a case where your client is technically guilty of a “malum prohibitum” offense (like not posting free advertisung signs for Non-Gentile Organizations who want his employeez to sue him) & the opposition has blown through legal fees 5x the actual damages. The math element devours the justice element so inevitably that your client has to choose between settlement or bankruptcy even if he didn’t do sh*t.
Nope. This gives “big” everything far too much power. Just pour in more money and crush your ruining him or her utterly.
My solution is a rigid uniform legal code one that every lawyer has to read out loud upon getting his or her law degree.
Violations of the legal system via attorneys are capital; handled via anonymous star chamber or better an expert system so that no one can’t count on his buddies to save him or stack the courts
One people. one law, one interpretation all else is sedition
No matter what the DR state will have to watch institutions for many decades to prevent subversion. Reds are always steeped in sedition and revanchism and preventing another round of Cultural Marxism will require unpleasant measures
Broadly, trying to Poz anyone under 21 needs to have the same penalty as child rape since this is what it is.
It would help is people were simply disabused of the tenacious superstition that such a thing as “the rule of law” exists. It does not. It never has. MEN rule over other MEN. Period. ‘Twas ever thus. We pay a small segment of the general population to enforce the law. If they don’t, then THERE IS NO LAW, and certainly no such thing as the rule of law. If they enforce the laws selectively, then there is no law, and certainly no such thing as “the rule of law.” It does NOT EXIST and it never has. And it never will. Men rule over other men. Period. Everything else is a fantasy.
LAWS DO NOT ENFORCE THEMSELVES.
Ep, I’m unsurprisingly torn on tbat. As presently conceived and implemented, you”re right. But ultimately law is a technology, something far downstream from biology and evolution and still well downstream from ethics and politics.
Every society has laws and needs keepers thereof. In another time someone doing our job would be a priest, a druid or a lord. Culturally outsourcing the job is questionable and deifying the job as we’ve essentially done in the cult of neoliberal democracy is fatal.
You must exhaust every Avenue because it forces tyranny into the open. The revolutionaries did it and gained support as tyranny became more visible and obvious that even bystanders couldn’t deny it. We just need more support and the best way to do it is to show the system they revere not working. If you act outside the system too soon, you alienate those who have not reached the view that it is fundamentally broken.
Not only is Peter Brimelow right to be spending time and money in court, so should every white advocate. Our enemies openly break laws and discriminate against us. They have no fear. If a person or organization with deep pockets is oppressing you or denying you your rights you can obtain discrete video recording devices for under $40. The nation is awash with attorneys, many of which are awakening to the profit to be made from winning cases for our side.
Do we have most of the courts against us? of course. But our enemies are breaking the laws in broad daylight. It can not get much easier. It will not be long before there is a crew of lawyers begging to take our cases if they are well documented at no cost. For decades the game has been to make white people squirm. The worm has turned.
Some newspaper called James Edwards a leader of the KKK. It is not even in dispute that he is not now and has never been a member of the KKK let alone a leader of it. James Edwards informed the paper that he is not a KKK member or leader and the newspaper let it stand. James Edwards got a lawyer and sued. The courts decided since Edwards interviewed David Duke on his radio show and David Duke was a leader of the KKK, that this was good enough. The courts are hopelessly corrupt. Expect no mercy from the courts.
https://www.courthousenews.com/newspaper-cleared-radio-hosts-libel-claim-kkk-label/
No doubt, but that is a useful point. In your discourse with a typical white person, pointing these examples erodes their faith in the system, which is the heart of civic nationalism. Fundamentally, we want white people to come to the conclusion as you. The more of these examples, the easier the task.
The courts are hopeless. I don’t expect mercy from the courts.
But Joe Normie does. And until he sees – over and over – that they are hopeless, that they won’t show him mercy, he’ll continue to believe in the system. We need examples. The truth will slowly sink in, but only if he has examples to remind him what’s happening.
I agree. It’s just that it is so black-pilling that the press can just blatantly make stuff up about you and say you are a leader of an org of which you are not even a member.
White nationalist has largely turned into a generic slur, kind of like asshole, while being a leader of the KKK is very specific and can objectively quantified.
Lefties still talk as if Southern society is riddled with KKK members – with a chapter in every town.
Which isn’t even close to the truth.
So even that one (accusing somebody of being a KKK member) – is just a generic slur.
Take my word for this much: A WHOLE LOT of normies were awakened to the truth about the (nonexistent) “rule of law” by the Hillary Clinton email scandal. I have been able to use that a
GREAT MANY times to awaken sleepers. IT is gratifying to explain that there is no such thing as the rule of law–and there never has been. Laws do not enforce themselves. We pay a small segment of the general population to enforce the laws. If they don’t enforce them, then THERE IS NO LAW. If they enforce them selectively, then THERE IS NO LAW. Just keep explaining that “LAWS DO NOT ENFORCE THEMSELVES.” When they are ready, introduce them to Sam Francis and his term “anarcho-tyranny.” EVERY
BODY understands that. Believe me.
Another term that drives me nuts is populism. I noticed the usual suspects used that one extensively when the media slobs attacked Trump… his popularity was only limited to ignorant dirt people, dontchya know? Populism is dangerous when dirt people do it!!!
😬🤭😬
This is a symptom of the disease consuming the left. Words don’t mean what they want them to mean, so they redefine them. Or make up new ones. Once that little turdlet came tumbling out of their collective arse, all kinds of others followed. They invent crimes for behaviour they don’t like. It’s a hate crime for you to call a man a nigger, but entirely okay for him to act like one. Now they are inventing genders and pronouns to whitewash them.
Yes, white nationalist will indeed become a slur if it isn’t already, and being one will be a prosecutable crime.
It’s time to put a stop to this. Letting stupid and crazy people redefine us isn’t good for anyone.
Re:
” This is a symptom of the disease consuming the left. Words don’t mean what they want them to mean, so they redefine them. Or make up new ones.”
That’s not a bug – that’s a feature.
You’re calling it a disease – which would imply that it’s abnormal. The reality is that the behavior you’re referring to is NORMAL for communist cadre lefties.
The destruction of language is a tactic pushed by Frankfurt School adherents – as a methodology to rip apart the fabric of society. The long term goal is to make it impossible for people to even talk about that which oppresses them.
Think of it in terms of being a Pacific islander. You wouldn’t even have a word for snow. So when it snows – you simply cannot communicate what is happening. If commie leftists can destroy the richness of language – they can remove the ability of people to effectively communicate ideas, and most importantly: resist.
What is that white man trying to say? I don’t know comrade – he just grunts and gestures – beat him harder until he complies.
This tactic has a long history. Back in the days when slavery existed – you could get in serious trouble for teaching a slave to read.
Knowing your enemy is fundamental to effective resistance – and being a dissident. Seems like some of you guys don’t know your enemy very well.
Everyone should have read George Orwell’s “1984” by now. Orwell was a Lefty and knew the game well.
We did, C.
But what do you do when it’s say, your mother that is pushing the buttons? Get in her face and slap her into submission? Or let the old bitch prattle and ignore it? Those are your choices in the hive. What happens when it’s YOUR kid that comes home and announces that she’s queer and woke? That’s literally what it takes to Red Pill someone who is in The Hive.
Recognizing the enemy is easy, some of us saw him coming back in the 80’s and 90’s. The question now is… what are we actually going to DO about him? These endless articles where we notice him are great… but we have to decide what to do about it and how to do it. Sure, throwing the fuggin moslems and jews out is a great start… but how do you go about it without getting arrested or killed? Nobody is talking about that, and even the dissidents will attack you if you try. “Big Brother is watching you!!! Whaddaya trying to do?!?!? Bring the FBI down on us…?!?!?”
THAT is where we are at.
You prepare for the Moment of Maximum Danger. You will know if when it comes.
The Orwell reference was wrt linguistic manipulation, not how to fight “Big Brother”. But if there is a lesson wrt opposition in 1984, it would be to sneak around the system and survive/thrive as best as possible. Not sure you are content with such an ending, but that was it. In the end Big Brother won and the protagonist, Winston, was caught, tortured, broken, and released as a reminder to others of such folly.
You decry that the bulk of the population will not accept the red pill. Not sure in any conflict, the bulk of the population was on one side or the other—at least not until there was a visible sign as to who would eventually win, then people joined on. The bulk of us are natural cowards while there is something left to lose. I assume a similar situation here. You will never red-pill a significant portion of the “normies”, and when you do, it will not be due to your persuasive reason and language. It will be because things have become so bad, there is nothing left to lose.
1984 was written as a warning, not a “how to” manual. It highlights the need to destroy the systems that, left unchecked, will destroy us.
With regard to our system, short term: eventually everyone is going to red pill. You can’t run a nation, much less an empire – on diversity, vibrancy and pozz. The only reason it’s working now is that western civilization is running on a rapidly decaying state of momentum. The current system must collapse, reality will not be redefined by Globohomo or anyone else.
The long game is what system will replace this one?
“You can’t run a nation, much less an empire – on diversity, vibrancy and pozz…
The long game is what system will replace this one?”
That’s some Truth and Beauty right there, Mr. Smith.
People should read his essay “On Politics & the English Language.” It contains the germ of the novel “1984.” It “explains” the deliberate corruption of language.
But one of the Founding Fathers (Sam Adams) said, “How strangely do the tools of a tyrant pervert the plain meaning of words!”
And the Progs are tools of tyranny.
What gets my panties in a wad are the righties who justify it as “language changes”. It doesn’t change that rapidly and has remained remarkably stable over time. The primary changes in language have come from adopting foreign words, wordsmithing, and pronunciation/spelling. Word etymology is a great big part of assigning definition to words. If language were as unstable as people seem to think it is, there would be no communication at all.
Every time I start reading this I get a mental image of your panties in a wad. Then I lose my train of thought and can’t concentrate on what I just read and have to start over. From now on, please be more considerate of aging deplorables.
The solution is simple:
Eliminate Panties!
I am a Yesterday Man, CD. I faced homosexuals, social justice warriors, millennial cry bullies and doxxers in the days before cool kids like you even had terms for them. You learned what you know about our enemies by seeing guys like me get crucified by them.
Guess you had to be there. To us who were… it seemed that people that we loved, trusted, and thought were our friends turned on us. They started accusing us of awful things and were criminalizing us while we were busy trying to be fair and honest with them and give them a fair shake. When my daughter accused me of being an abusive and toxic father – I backed up. I searched my soul and looked for something that I may have done that would possibly justify that. I was deeply hurt and devastated. My shitlib in laws piled on too. Of course today, ugly lesbians with daddy issues are a cliché. Then the other accusations came – you guys could predict them now a mile away, but to us paleocons, they hit like mortars, one right after the other: homophobia, racism, fascism, sexism… all the ‘bads’ that you dismiss with contempt and take for granted. But back then we just vapour locked and tried to make sense of these people. We asked ourselves, “What did we do to them…? Why are they doing this to us…?” Now it only matters to the paleocons and geriatrics that will be dead so soon, they don’t have to worry about it.
You younger men take the internet for granted. This all makes sense to you now, but back then guys like us had no voice, no community, no place where we could gather and compare notes. The only platforms available for that were controlled by Leftie, so we all suffered by ourselves. A whole generation of men watched their feral women destroy their families and themselves and the guys were blamed for it. Queers only wanted the privacy of their bedrooms, right? Nobody was allowed to notice that they were moving in on the classrooms, the washrooms, the courtrooms, and the boardrooms. Those that did were hurled into the void, as our esteemed blog host likes to say. They got inside our decision loops, and all we could do is react… to one incursion after the other. And here we are today, with old farts like me wondering how in hell we got here.
I thank God Almighty that men like you and your friends here are onto them now, and slowly moving against them. You are up to the task, thank God… and you have my sincere apologies for leaving you the world in this state.
John,
You have my condolences, and to a certain extent, empathy. Me and my wife learned last week that her eldest daughter is a lesbian. She’s an adult, and never lived with us (we married when she was 15) but it’s still disappointing. It only took a couple years for her to go from approvingly posting Bible pages on Facebook to extolling the virtues of Bad Touch Story Hour. I figured at first she was just doing liberal virtual-signaling, because it started during Sodomy Appreciation Month, where there’s no shortage of self-hating breeders giving thumbs-up to that. But it also seemed she was drifting away from Christianity. She just stopped mentioning it (except for the post where she endorsed the idea of Christians spending pride month apologizing to gays). There was an obnoxious pro-abortion retweet that made me wonder too. Personally, I don’t oppose abortion because I simply want to impose my will on others. I oppose it because it is murder and it is evil. A Christian, even a pro-choice one, would at least understand why other Christians would be pro-life.
I was already on her shit-list anyway for a) insisting that she visit her disabled mother as a minor and b) not allowing her, as an adult, to manage my father-in-law’s estate. She threatened to sue us twice over the latter, actually. So it’s not like she was an otherwise pleasant person merely wrestling with her sexuality. But still, it was disappointing to read the tweet in December that confirmed it all. In the tweet, she asked for advice on how, as a “delicate, LGBT, do-nothing Democrat” she could mass de-friend people. No identifying as a Christian — i.e. “Hey, how can I de-friend a bunch of people in the most Christian way possible, even though I’m also LGBT?” Or if she still is into God — and I don’t think one can serve both God and identify as LGBT at the same time — it’s slipped to at best an unmentionable third in her identity pileup.
I figured something was up in October when she cut most of her hair off — my guess was that she was transgender. She still may be, who knows? She even listened to shitty emo/punk music, which nowadays is evidently the Official Soundtrack of LGBT. She’s married to a male, who apparently knew all this before they got married. I don’t see their marriage making all the way through Decade 2 intact.
The bright side is that I’m feeling a lot better about not giving her a dime of the estate (she wanted a third of it). So not all bad news. I But anyway, John, I just wanted to say that I find your posts on this stuff quite interesting, and I wouldn’t mind reading more about it as me and my wife go through our own milder version of it. Thank you.
-Dave O’Connell
Hey Dave – I wish I had some wisdom to pass on or something that might help. Maybe the kids here can help us.
I followed my daughter around on the internet after we parted. They have forums and blogs and sites where they gather just as us dissidents, heretics and mutineers do. It killed me to see the things she was saying, and who she was saying them too. She never knew I was there, I never said anything, I just lurked in hopes of trying to understand her and maybe find some common ground to re-establish a relationship of some sort. After a couple years I just gave up. Unlike us, they don’t gather to discuss issues or trade info or opinions. They meet at those sites to affirm their identities. Any issues or controversies or differences are only props to be used to assert their identity, or their status or their virtue. They often bragged about emotionally torturing their family members and mocking their former faith and rejecting it. I learned that for me and my daughter… the things that divide us will probably not be resolved in this lifetime.
But … maybe there is hope in your case. Your gal at least had a moral compass at one point, so maybe it will be easier for her to reorient herself and come back? Mine was raised in an environment of moral relativism, and I allowed myself to be shamed into tolerating it. (Modern dissidents have no idea how effective shame was on Yesterday People. In its day it was one of Leftie’s most powerful weapons). For my daughter, she has no moral compass, and it’s my fault.
I tore myself up for years before coming to the conclusion that we all have to find our own way in this world… and at some point the kids have to do for themselves – and answer for it too.
All we can do now is pray.
John Smith – whatever our disagreements on the smaller things, you’ll always have my deepest respect for refusing to compromise despite the threat of losing everything. I can think of far too many counter examples – the “Christian” parents whose anti-abortion stance meant they celebrated their single daughter’s pregnancy and helped finance and raise her child; of my husband’s old friend, whose daughter is now planning a lesbian marriage, who cannot find it in him to oppose her. My own boys know certain behaviours would make me literally disown them – and they know I’m deadly serious.
I am glad your sons have a mother with a moral compass and strong foundations, 3g4me. But I can see how parents can abandon theirs to keep their children close.
The break up of my family did lead me to the faith, so maybe some good will come of it after all.
Cal, John”s reluctance to accept that a big chunk of people that many of us recently considered fellow citizens is viral and evil is a stage of grief, not something to hammer him for. And he’s been pretty open about how it hit home hard.
How many of us don’t still experience gut-level dissonance and confusion at seeing members of our own tribes savage us in the name of Others?
I never understood how “populism” came to be a derogatory term in a democracy, where as a rule the aim of elections is to get more votes than the other bloke.
I’m more popular!
No, I’m more popular!
You popularist bastard!
It’s b/c you don’t know what democracy is. You have drunk the Kool-Ade. Democracy is the system of govt through which a well-organized minority rules over (loots) an unorganized majority. NB: Not “disorganized” but “unorganized.”
But we are also witnessing the Communist takeover of the decadent West. They just stopped calling themselves Communists, but “a rose by any other name … .”
All your points seem valid about this being good except for the fact that I didn’t even know it was happening and I’m reasonably well aware. If nobody knows it’s happening it won’t be helpful. The fact that the media controls the public debate it’s going to be an issue here
True. But it’s still and expense and possible public relations disaster for the Times.
Make the cost of occupation so high that they leave. Try every tool possible and keep using those that work.
My thought as well. Adjudicating whiteness in the courts is one thing, but how the media will spin it is another.
Look at roe v wade all these years later. Abortion is a constitutional right as far as anyone is concerned. The court case? Please.
If this was about the ‘me too’ stuff we can count on competing media companies to eagerly print the ugliness as long as it is about their competition.
But when it comes to white hate, the media are united.
I don’t see them breaking ranks and allowing the story to come out.
Sure, some story will come out, just not the one that would help our cause or encourage others to take up the fight.
The sandman case is encouraging. But like the CIA/FBI/Democrat coup on Trump and all the subsequent investigating and reporting on such, the problem can be reduced to administrative procedural errors.
One kid gets a payday but the truth is buried. The question is if or how these cases actually become like asbestos to the media. Where attacking whiteness allows everyman to join the class action. Where the subject matter is purged from the building.
But white hate is essential to their cause. So I don’t see them letting these cases see daylight.
Take sandman. The media error with sandman was not their obvious bias and open hostility toward whiteness and white men and boys, but rather ‘a media marketplace of intense competition that unfortunately led to the presentation of facts that were not fully vetted…its regrettable and we are currently working on internal training and procedures to avoid this in the future.’
I would love to be way off on my assessment. But i see the parallels in other areas get mired in the legal-media complex and then buried all the time. Hard to imagine white hate escaping the same.
The truth is not buried r.e. Sandmann. It is right there in the open. What has been done has been to put rhetorical blinders onto normie, so he can’t see things for what they are. Our job is to yank off the blinders. When we do so, those who see the light will never go back. There are too many Sandmanns for the lid to be kept on things any more, and we need to be pulling off blinders for people like there is no tomorrow (or there may not be, for us).
Yep, and it’s a better argument to cite to “Joe Normie”—“Did you know that in vDare vs NYT that the judge ruled…”—rather than argue personal opinion and experience wrt White Supremacy.
If the media have the kind of power you are talking about, then how do we know about this lawsuit at all?
There are parts of the MSM, like some popular Fox news analysts, who really don’t like the Times. Rush Limbaugh reaches about 20 million normies per week. The Times won’t be able to hide this once the do-do hits the fan.
There’s a motte and bailey to the “whiteness” stuff. You see, what various groups did is they took everything the Left hates, capitalism, class distinction, pollution, everything and place it at the feet of “Whiteness”.
Now, creating a hate totem out of a biological fact that a population can’t control is clearly just to hate that population. But, they wiggle out of it by claiming that all the good things that white people have done can be attributed to other identities that white people can possess. In theory, White people can have pride in anything but being White. This is the motte.
Where they live, the bailey, is they just hate ALL whites regardless.
Great piece, emphasizing the importance of not getting caught up in factional beefs about who’s being a proud WN vs. who’s “cucking.”
As Z says, the reality is what it is – “white nationalist” is a slur now.
Let Brimelow use the issue as a club and leave it to others to hash out the nuances.
Fighting each other in an arena M.C.’d by hostile nonwhites is bound to hurt more than help us. It’s a classic “let’s you and him fight” trap we can easily avoid.
Purity tests are something to be hashed out among ourselves – outsiders are not welcome and will only throw salt in the inevitable wounds. Publicly debating with these guys “in the room” is the worst kind of brother-war political bloodsport, and it lets them shift the conversation from the dirty deeds they did to something else about and between us, not them.
Every single time.
Soldier on, Pete. Do what you have to do and everything you can.
Yep. White Nationalist is a slur – for now. Make the Times explain why. That’s what this is about. For the Times to publicly explain why white people shouldn’t defend their group rights or think as a group at all – while it’s perfectly fine for everyone else.
This will win of a thousand times more recruits than my trying to tell Joe Normie why I think white nationalist is a perfectly legitimate term.
Wielded as a slur, “white nationalist” should be met with the same response as “racist”: An affable, mildly curious “what’s wrong with being a white nationalist?” That puts the onus on them to explain what white nationalism is, exposing, hopefully, the puerile nature of the slur.
That’s what I do in my real life. Personally, I like to insult their intelligence because white Leftists always assume that they’re smarter than whites on the Right. It’s short circuits their brain immediately.
So if she someone says that I’m a racist or white nationalists or whatever, I just reply, “Well, yeah, any reasonably intelligent person would be.” I also love to throw science at them for the same reason, saying, “I don’t even know what racist means anymore, but I am a Darwinist.” Then enjoy watching them try and explain how they both believe in evolution and natural selection, except for humans starting around 50,000 years ago, kind of like the Bible saying the earth was created 10,000 years ago.
I’m more inclined to say what’s wrong with loving my people and leave it in their court to explain why they hate themselves and others of their race…
By re-framing the challenge, you put yourself on the defensive. You have nothing to be ashamed of, you should feel no obligation to explain yourself. It makes you sound evasive and it’s bad game.
Just accept the label with a shrug and send the ball back to the other guy’s court, let him itemize his gripes with white nationalists. It will either make him sound like a fool or a bigot.
Of course, true regressives would never do that, because engaging you in a meaningful conversation would mean that they validated you as a rational human being that can be reasoned with, and not a goose-stepping larper beyond reason or redemption.
How does saying so put the ball back in his court…All saying so does is give him the ammunition to vilify you even more in front of the normies…The next step is calling you a Nazi and are you going to respond so to that also…I think when you say “so” you give him another opening but that’s just me…Thing is I don’t give a crap what the person thinks who calls me that because I’m not going to change his mind anyway it’s the normies that are listening that I want to sway off the fence onto our side… Saying “so” doesn’t do that, it makes them turn away which is exactly what the guy who called you that wanted in the first place…
How does saying so put the ball back in his court
Because it’s no longer him challenging you, it’s you challenging him. Now it’s him who must justify his position, not you.
His position is to attack and you just handed him more ammo but you keep doing what you are doing if it works and I will do what works for me…
I didn’t give him ammo, I gave him rope. The worst position you can put a regressive in, is to invite him to explain himself. When he starts reeling of his talking points, he’s really lobbing you soft balls:
“I’m so glad you brought up the Holocaust, because that’s a common misconception: no, the goal of white nationalists is not to throw all Jews into gas chambers and make lamp shades of their skin, in fact, it’s about learning from the way our admirable fellow white people – our brethren in the Judaeo-Christian faith – have organized their ethnostate in Israel.
Are your other objections to white nationalism also anti-Semitic? I have nothing against anti-Semites, mind you, but you might want to be careful with those opinions when you’re in the company of Normies.”
Like I said Brother you do what works for you and I will do what works for me and hopefully we will wake some people up…
Amen to that.
or as Andrew Breitbart would answer, so?
Yes, another curveball from hell.
Always make sure your opponent is the one answering questions.
Or my stock reply (not that I get to use it a lot, but it has happened): “I don’t owe you an explanation.”
CSC—I am with you. I want to red pill as many whites as we can.
But I think that a lawsuit based on actions such as the Covington Boys suit is the way to go. A big and expensive win here would be huge.
However, I don’t think a lawsuit based on name calling is a good way to go. The chances of winning are small and if the suit is lost it will make whites even more fearful of being tarred with words that our betters can come up with faster than we can win a name argument. The slow change from racist to white nationalist as a potent slur shows there is an endless flow of names that can be used against us if we fear being called those names.
Purity tests are something to be hashed out among ourselves
Fair point, although I don’t like the term “purity test.”
“Ideas test” is much more to the point: the regressives lose debates because they’re not allowed to bicker among themselves, so they have no idea what kind of arguments may be leveraged at their moronic tenets, they are unprepared or even unable to engage.
The lefties are superb organizers, but organizing comes with ideological discipline and loyalty to a Dear Leader. If you don’t have any leaders, they globalists cannot strawman them or smear you by associating with them, they can’t put you in jail for belonging to a white supreeeemist organisation and so forth.
The plurality of the disright is one of our strengths. It allows us almost unlimited flexibility in arguing why whites are people too and why they deserve a country like everybody else (except you-know-who). Thus, arguing guilt by association doesn’t work very well
Mr Leftie: “Are you aware that Tommy Robinson said blablabla.”
Mr Rightie: “Yeah, I hate the racist SOB for selling out England to Brussels and Big Finance.
Mr. Leftie: “Wait, what?”
Mr Rightie: “And don’t even get me started on Stefan Molyneux or Jordan Peterson.”
Mr. Leftie: “But… So you’re like Ben Shapiro, then?”
And if they finally pin you down on something, well, they’ve only pinned you down, not the entire movement.
“Felix said, blablabla…”
“Yes, the guy is a certified nutter, he’s anti-gun, can you believe it?”
Go leaderless and share the unspoken but obvious truths in a, well, unspoken but alluded-to way. The mental panopticon of theirs, just like the physical one, has a wide vision but a short focal distance. Operate just beyond the view of the panopticon. It’s a mental dance, of sorts.
I enjoy VDare and greatly appreciate all that Peter Brimelow has done for our cause. That being said, this lawsuit just sounds like another example of “hey look, a Boomer still thinks that redress via the courts is an actual thing!”
We need to get away from this idea, just as we need to get away from the idea that our final victory will come at the ballot box.
While I think we are past the point where reform is possible, litigation serves a useful role. We forget that 90% of whites don’t think we are beyond the point of reform. This sort of action puts the issue in front of them. It also throws sand in the gears of the Times and other media outfits. The smaller ones will think twice about bandying the labels around as a result. They can’t afford to fight this stuff.
Exactly. We accomplish three primary goals.
1. We show that the MSM and other organizations truly hate white people, not white racism, white people
2. We show the system to be rigged against us
3. We make the cost of occupation that much higher
I dream of the day we have a European-American Legal Defense Fund that sues anyone and everyone. Dissidents need to use every tool available, and, for now, this is a great one.
“3. We make the cost of occupation that much higher”
Agreed. you don’t have to believe in the legitimacy of the courts to use the courts to damage your enemies.
But it’s not as if these lawsuits are free for our side.
Shlomo has more money and more expertise in this field. And when Brimelow loses, if it’s covered at all, it’ll just be “Nazi loses lawsuit,” even in allegedly friendly outlets like Breitbart.
I simply think there’s better uses of our very limited resources.
Maybe, but why not give it a try. If it fails, move on.
The case will not go to trial.
I can’t say I’ve ever seen Brimelow mentioned in Breitbart, but the world you imagine (in which he is referred to there as a Nazi) is not a real one.
Peter is not a foolish or frivolous man, and his wife Lydia is sharp as a tack. Whatever their chances of success, you can be certain this lawsuit was not undertaken on a whim. Yes, it will certainly cost money – unfortunately, in this society, everything does. But the potential benefit is immense, and like the Covington kids, getting the Times tied in knots, proving them liars or dissimulators, or getting shekels out of them are all good things in and of themselves.
None of that helps us whites at all. Are the Covington kids talked about anymore? Nope. Not part of the news cycle.
Yeah it will get a 10 second blurb on FoxNews and will be buried on the back page of the WaPo.
Ever hear of something called PR and the laser printer? We do our own info campaign to wake up whites. It’s not hard, it just requires a bit of creativity and research.
Create e-books, dead tree pamphlets, flyers that illustrate how much the Left and Business hate white Americans. These people have left us with a treasure trove of venom aimed at whites in some manner that we can use against them. Play up the Christian angle too since they hate Christians.
We don’t have to make anything up or go over the top. We just let the Tribes own words and that of their white minions do our work for us.
It’s sort of like the impeachment circus. Does it serve any real point? No. It does create chaos and makes the media and Democrats look bad, though. That drunken speech by Nancy Pelosi went viral and is now probably the ONLY significant piece of video a lot of people have ever seen of her. Lawsuits that make the Rhymes-with-New York Times look stupid are good things too.
Agreed.But we can’t rely on court actions and the MSM to get our message out.. We need to have our own guerilla marketing – information campaign to inform fellow whites. Look the Tribe and it’s white upper class cohorts have left a sea of ink decrying the whtie man and the civilization he created. We can use their toxic agit-prop words against them.
We know it works – just look how they react to the “It’s ok to be white” flyers. The tribe and their toadies freak out because it rings a bell among some whites. Imagine if our side did more than that.
When he loses, it shows a few more guys that the system will not save them. A lot of Pete’s resources are not going to flow our way in any case – VDare for all its good is fairly firewalled from our rightward side of things. A lot of money and support that flows there still consider us the Outer Darkness.
I’m 95% sure he’s going to get nada from this. In the end, a judge with deep Jewish connections to the Jewish defense team and the Jewish newspaper of record will cook the books. That said, I want him to make as good a show of this as possible and make a lot of noise. There’s a small chance that a rogue judge gets a chance to rule on this in a straight fashion.
That small chance will cause a lot of hand-rubbing and oy veys. Keeping them rustled has its own benefits.
As scary as it sounds, we need to some public Gandhi-style beat downs of our people to wake people up. We need to force GloboSchlomo (I’m officially trademarking that term, btw, because I love it and have never seen it before) to call out the troops on nice, middle-class, middle-age whites and order them to figuratively beat our heads in.
Joe Normie needs to see his kind getting treated like the despised helots that we are. We need to force their hand and lawsuits are a great way to do that.
Citizen, another great way to do that is President Bernie.
This might benefit our people more than another four years of soma pills from President Kushner.
You’re joking aren’t you? Our people have been beaten down for years and it doesn’t work because the MSM has stopped covering the assaults. It’s called Polar Bear hunting. Sheesh.
The DA’s give the blacks doing the assaults a slap on the wrist for the most part and they cannot be tied to your globalist Jews.
Normie has been getting treated like c**p thanks to the globalists but our side is too busy to notice and leverage it and make those folks recruits.
I thinks it quite clear no one in the DR really gives a shit about outreach.
Please teach us your silver-tongued charm skills, wise one.
I subscribe to Vdare. They are on the side of the angels, just not as cutting edge as Zman. But they are very effective at keeping forbidden issues in front of normie. I highly recommend some of the writers there, especially James Kirkpatrick. And keep in mind that Buchanan’s articles also appear there, so they have a broad reach. Any website that PayPal refuses to handle must be doing something right.
I subscribe Vdare also. John Derb. Is over there, good enough reason right there.
James Edwards went down this road some years ago. The characterization was even worse…and he got zilch.
But the publicity increased his name recognition, the popularity of his radio show and the demand for him as a guest speaker.
He also got into a public conflict with a high level Baptist official that had his church ostracized. Public support backed him again.
We lose in the star chamber but where it counts, we take home the prom queen.
If you go public be in a position to turn the tables.
If he gets a good Jewish lawyer, he has every chance of winning a handsome out-of-court settlement.
The Sandmann settlement with CNN is a good sign. Brimelow has gotten multiple payments from resorts that canceled contracts to host conferences for VDare. Destroying the legitimacy of legacy media in the eyes of the public has a lot of value.
And don’t forget that Trump is already doing a lot of the heavy lifting in this regard. It will be his lasting legacy.
As much as we beat up on Trump, there are a lot of things we will miss about him when he is gone. I am finding the argument that “Trump is taking down the religious fundamentalists that throw gays off of high roofs, and stone the woman to death in the middle of a packed stadium, when a man forcibly rapes her, rather than giving those bastards billions of dollars in unmarked cash”, as particularly cognitively disassociative to the right people.
Really? The guy that overrode Congress to give sensitive military technology to the Saudis? The guy that sends US troops to Saudi Arabia as mercenaries? The Saudis do all of the atrocities you mention. They’ve also killed thousands of Americans on US soil. The most recent killings were a couple of weeks ago. Private citizen Trump and Candidate Trump rightly blamed the Saudis for 9/11. I wonder what changed?
For instance? I’m not being facetious, but he’s let Antifa run roughshod over his supporters and does nothing. He champions the tech companies banning and de-platforming conservatives.
Exactly. As if the courts have demonstrated in any way that they disagree with the NYT in their view of whites.
It is like a divorced dad trying to enforce the terms of his custody in “Family court”.
My brother went to court because his sociopath ex was encroaching on his time with his daughter. He was just trying to get what he was already entitled to.
Well as a regular course of business they reviewed everything. Determined all that OT he worked all those weekends he didnt have his daughter, so he could afford two houses and two pay for the right to be a dad, meant that he now owed his ex – who was in violation of the court ordered agreement, more money!
She got a firm talking to. He got a bill and a new financial bar set for his support payments.
So yeah, let’s take our fight to the courts! Right after we rock the vote! And write our congressmen.
In the meantime, best keep paying those taxes without getting to uppity on those deductions.
Screw, litigatiion is a higher risk strategy that’s situationally appropriate for some guys. I don’t I have a greedy ex to dox me or kids They can hold hostage figuratively or literally. It’s also my job. It’s up to all of us to make the best contribution they can. Reach for your limit and try to stretch and expand it, but always be aware of it & respect the others your activism puts at risk.
You’re looking at this all wrong. Dissidents should use every tool available. We should be suing people, organizations and businesses left and right. We win no matter what. During the lawsuit, our enemies:
1. Disclose information damaging to their side
2. Publicly defend hating white people and demanding we don’t has the same rights as other groups
If we win the suit, it hurts our enemy. If we lose, it shows Joe Normie that the system hates them and doesn’t work anymore.
Citizen, admittedly I am overly blackity black pill on this, but I do see your point of exercising the system from every angle.
I just have trouble visualizing here to there given that we have half the voters in fear of being outed as a Trump supporter and he is the sitting US Prez.
The Implicit racism of whites is deeply ingrained not just in the courts and media but also in the white psyche.
Its ‘prove that you are not a racist’ all the way down.
Discovery cuts both ways. Ever say the ‘N word’? Ever post on a hate site? Will your friend risk his corporate job and social standing to help you prove you are not racist?
Most people I encounter are more inclined to ‘work on their racism’ than to tell people to ‘STFU’ and risk social status hits. But I do live in a rabid prog hive.
Whites are paralyzed by the fear of being called a racist. Yet we are also already a racist because we are white.
Whatever gets people over the former to embrace the absurdity of the latter is progress. I just question whether pressing this in the courts is an effective use of limited resources. Kind of along the same lines as giving interviews with the media.
Like most other aspects of institutionalized white male hate, there are just not a lot of men and resources to bring to bear on these things.
Perhaps that is yet another aspect of building communities that needs to be accounted for. The trick being raising resources and awareness but not so much that it becomes a ‘hate group’.
I figure try everything. Keep using what works. Quickly ditch what doesn’t.
It’s the trend-following method of engagement. Cut your losses and let your winners run. It’s an investment strategy, but I’ve found it to be very effective in life. Most people want some grand, detailed plan before starting and then stick to it no matter what. I’ve found a better strategy is to start small with a bunch of things and follow those that work, dropping those that don’t. It’s harder than you think.
Citizen, that’s a good model for dissident risk-taking and strategy in general. Taleb’s “anti-fragility” and “optionality” concepts are jazzed-up restatements of this old investing heuristic.
“Discovery cuts both ways.”
Taqiyya cuts both ways too. When faced with inconvenient questions in Clown World litigation, ask yourself “what would BIll Clinton do?”
Keep this in mind when answering voir dire questions for jury duty as well. If a wigga woulda, James Fields coulda walked.
11 angry Other-cucks can still be outvoted by one wily sh*tlord willing to toss a wrench in the gears of Juice-tice.
For those who counter “but they’ll find out you’re lying and then convict you of perjury as well,” if you’re that screwed already, you’re just screwed. I’ve said it before. In the maw of the System all of your options are less than optimal. Do what you can in the face of long odds.
It’s extremely difficult to prove perjury vs. “I misremembered – it was a long time ago.” General Flynn went down for this in part because he plead and in part because the System wanted him that badly. Like I said, at Leviathan’s poker table all your options suck to some degree. If they want you bad enough, you’ll be Epstein’d, regardless of the cards you hold or fold.
Mark Fuhrman took the better game theory option in his circumstances. If he had “honored his oath,” OJ would have walked for sure anyway, without even the additional effort it took the shysters to find an ex who’d squeal on him.
Sometimes you lose on a percentage bet, but playing the percentages still wins more often than being the only guy following the rules in a rigged game.
“Sometimes you lose on a percentage bet…”. Been reading a bit of fresh Howard Marks this week?
Orlov this week but the betting stuff is a thing of mine for years running. I’ve explained litigation to clients in gambling terms for years. Human behavior in general is more like poker than chess.
Sounds like you really need to move to another part of the country. ARe you in the PAcific NW?
I am a white nationalist. I am white. I am a nationalist. There, I said it.
It goes beyond this. I have a pride in my whiteness. It is whitey that created this wonderful experiment in government that has resulted in raising the world from poverty to wealth and, overall, good health. To be sure, it was a small number of crackers that did the deed; but, they were white. There is no doubt and no question.
Tyranny is more or less government by aggression. Democracy is an attempt to make government peaceful. People talk instead of fighting. This makes the media the enforcers instead of the military. And the powerful exert power with media presence instead of a boot.
So the rulers rule you by staying on your mind instead of smacking you upside the head. You aren’t being dominated— of course not. You’re coming to consensus. People first have to be civilized (usually by violence) to make it work. Our ancestors suffered immensely for what we live under today. Why generally freedom-loving whites came up with it is beyond me.
It’s not about what we believe around here. It’s about Joe Normie. To Joe Normie, white nationalist is a slur. But if you force the Times to explain why (answer: they hate white people or, more specifically, gentile white people), Joe Normie might rethink his position.
White nationalist shouldn’t be a slur. Force the enemy to explain why it is. They can’t without showing their hand. Dissidents have to use every tool available.
I don’t identify as a white nationalist or a white supremacist. I do identify as a “white realist” though.
If your “realism” isn’t informing you that
A. White people have shared interests (White nationalism), and
B. Whites have created in Western Civilization a society that is superior to all other major civilizations (White Supremacy),
then I don’t think much of your “realism.”
You make a lot of assumptions out of a two sentence post Vizzini. Can you infer my favorite food too?
Maybe if you weren’t unnecessarily cryptic, Vizzini wouldn’t need to try and figure out what the hell you’re saying.
So you realize that there are biological differences between the various races, but you don’t want to belong to a separate white community or homeland.
Are you against others wanting that?
Also, “superior” is a loaded word, but it’s hard to argue that whites haven’t been superior in advancing civilization forward.
Not sure what your overall point is.
I read that as “what I am willing to declare in public” vs “what I believe”. The key phrase is “identify as”.
FWIW I am totally cool with that. One need not always shout out EVERYTHING one thinks, so long as what one DOES say does not contradict one’s actual position.
Yea but Mike this really isn’t the Public so to say that here is to virtue signal that he’s not a racist which according to the Commies if you’re white then you are a racist…
“The fool uttereth all his mind.”
I would assume, on the contrary, that “identify” meant, as usual, what he thought of himself as, and had nothing to do with his choices in public declaration.
Brimelow doesn’t identify as White Nationalist, either. So, what if the Times calls -you- a White Nationalist?
When used by the Times “right wing” and “conservative” are epithets. too.
Legally I think they’re safe if it’s either epithet or opinion.
If I may split hairs, I think I’m a white nationalist in the European context…For example, London is most certainly a white-built city in a white-built country and English are white people. If you are a brown passport-holding Briton, you are a technically a Briton but actually not. Furthermore the English have an absolute right to fight for and protect their homeland from outsiders. It’s a duty, in fact. This is white nationalism, or to split hairs some more, English nationalism.
In the American context? I don’t know. Certainly white Europeans founded the country and built its institutions and made it into a world power. But I don’t think blood and soil exists here like in Europe. The Americas were colonized, and since then have been subject to great interior migrations and mixings of peoples. Not many people have stayed put. Dayton, OH was built by whites but is Montgomery County a white homeland? If you think a few generations of whites makes a homeland, yes. But there are a few generations of Africans living in England right now. Is England their homeland?
That said, while I may quibble with white nationalism in the American context, I am absolutely not against white identitarianism and advocacy. American whites have every right to organize and push for their interests, as they do live here, and have built here. I hope nothing but the worst for the NY Times.
BS. The Constitution was written for the Founders and their descendants as per the preamble. The Founding Fathers even observed that their system had a chance because they had a people with a shared heritage. Until 1965, foreign borne types and non-whites never made up more than a minority of the population.
The descendants of the Dutch in South Africa are Boers, not Dutch. They have been there for about as long as English people in America.
True, but the founders did not envision a massive country with a population of 300+ million. What started as one thing has evolved to another. Take Russia for example. I would not say all of Russia is a white homeland. The Kievan Rus areas (basically Russia west of the Urals north of the Caucasus) are Russian homelands, and could be a seat of Russian nationalism, just as one could argue that New England is a seat of Yankee nationalism. But can Russians be nationalistic about the whole damn place? I don’t know. Large countries with historically regular internal migration by peoples not closely related is at best a gray area for ethno-nationalism.
White does not Equal Posterity. The Irish and the Italians and the countless others of European extraction inflicted their own ruin on our posterity and founding state. In essence the Know Nothings were right.
So did the hunger for cheap and slave labor FWIW
And note that the very grievances of the Founder’s worked against the very posterity.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
In reality, the Founding Fathers wanted more diversity in the form of foreigners to pump the economy whereas King George wanted to rule over Englishmen and build a nation slowly
A nation like the USA founded on self deceit and what is in large part economics won’t last and our didn’t
This makes it incumbent for the Dissident Right to build a new nation for the 21st century taking the good bits of the old system and building something for Cyberpunk 2020 our world instead of time with more in common with King Arthur
Good quote (from the Declaration). Made me put things together in a new way, and I appreciate that.
If Abraham Lincoln decided the matter of national secession, it still leaves open the question of whether the states can reorganize, no? Maybe the red counties of Virginia can jettison the blue satellite counties of Washington DC in Virginia. Maybe hook up with West Virginia? Likewise, western Pennsylvania can jettison Philadelphia, a city that can unite with true blue NJ. These new states could eliminate sanctuary cities, new restrictive gun control laws, and the resettlement of refugees.
I believe that the reorganization issue was decided on the formation of West Virginia. It was once a part of Virginia and seceded in, if memory serves, 1863. So, there is a precedent.
I am not so sure about secession from the US. The world is a different place.
Well then Stormy, I think we should do it again. If the left can have their sanctuary cities then we can have our sanctuaries too! Actually, California already is a de facto sanctuary state. New Virginia! New Pennsylvania! By the by, there is a little town in the Poconos called White Haven.
Many colonists saw America as a chance to get rich. Many were dissidents looking for a new homeland. The tension has always been there. Obviously the capitalists have made the most noise but there are also distinct cultures. The undermining of those cultures is a fairly recent development.
I believe that the dissidents outweighed those simply wanting to get rich. Also, I think that the attitudes of these folks were sufficiently different that the dissidents won the cultural war.
Americans are unique in the world. Travel abroad if you don’t believe me. Foreigners with whom I have been able to discuss this agree with this characterization.
Why are we unique? The English that settled this country were largely those that wanted to be somewhere else. They wanted it so badly that they were willing to bring their families to this place and tame a wild country to satisfy their separatist tendencies. We are a distinctly stand-offish group of loners who, traditionally, value our freedoms and self reliance. It is not a coincidence that the best governmental structure in history was developed and flourished here.
I read Bastiat (The Law) a long time ago. He contrasted pre-civil-war America against the political developments of Europe, particularly France. His words eerily echo the creeping socialism overtaking this once vibrant republic.
It’s not about how long a people have lived someplace. The Angle-Saxon-Jute-Briton people that came to dominate that island have no more right to that piece of land than do the more recent tribes. The Jews have no more right to the land called Israel than anybody else.
Any group that claims some mystical right to a piece of land is blowing smoke up your ass or fooling themselves – or both. Nationalism is about a people wanting to carve out a place for themselves and their culture, whether in a larger society or, better yet, in a homeland. After that, it’s up to them to keep it.
Occupation, use and control are what matter most in terms of land “ownership.” I use quotes because the concept of ownership is substantially different when it comes to real property natural resources & the like compared with personal property. Your thousand year lease for a dollar isn’t worth anything unless everyone else agrees with you. It’s not as if we honor the treaty splitting the world between Spain and Portugal.
Countries like Ireland whose alleged “leaders” have sold the country’s oil forests and minerals to multi-nats & pocketed the proceeds ala Yeltsin & his cronies in the 1990’s should burn the magic paper & tell the owners of the ashes “molon labe.”
Like the debt jubilee & prohibitions on usury, Our post-capitalism should include a “use it or lose it” concept of land and resouce rights – with use being community-oriented rather than simply for individual profit.
That’s English Nationalism not White Nationalism. English is an ethnicity, White isn’t. If a Ukrainian falls of the boat at Dover and takes my job, knowing that he’s White is no comfort.
Where the all-encompassing “White” nationalism comes into it, is that at some point we’ll need to start seeing all of us as just “White.” Why you ask? Because the dusky parasites see us all as just white, period. We will all be treated the same in the coming decades. The program is to eliminate ALL of us, not just the English or just the French or whatever.
When a gang of negroes breaks down your door, they aren’t going to untie you, get up off your bleeding, shrieking wife and daughter, apologize and leave because you said “wait a second…I’m of POLISH descent, not Irish!”
We will all have to unite, or die separately.
Different issue altogether. The Ukrainian takes your job because business and the ruling class want it that way and to also antagonize native Brits against their fellow whites. Old tactic. Divide and conquer
The point is the other ethnic groups don’t care about your economic predicament or that another white took your job. To them you are all whites and deserve to be eradicated the way white were i Rhodesia. Jews are finding it in places like NYC where they are used as punching bags by blacks because they are seen as whites.
When the NYTimes says “White Nationalist” they are not talking about caucasian nationalists.
Agreed 1000%.
I celebrate and reaffirm being as white as possible everyday. I do white things, listen to white music, read white authors, look at white art and hang out with white people.
I could not possibly be more proud of the history of white people and everything they have accomplished.
Well said.