The content presented at this web site thewhitenetwork-archive.com is the sole property of the program host and/or writer and The White Network. All rights reserved.
Before copying or re-posting anything from this site, please refer to our Copyright and Re-posting Policy.
Before commenting, please refer to our Comment Policy.
Carolyn,
Please have Hadding and Will Williams understand that Harold is more experienced than they are. He doesn’t lie and go after peopole in the movement like they do. We need to stop doing this if we are to ahve a future. Hadding is not helping at all and neither is Will Williams, Harold is. Harold has fourty five years of experience in this movement and is not scared of the goat dancing idiots that say irrelevant untrue and stupid things about him. He points their stupidity out when he needs to and Hadding and other like him have recently been proven wrong. I don’t agree with Hadding at all in regards to most anything. I understnad that he is a National Socialist and moreso a White Nationalist and I hate attacking people but he attacked Harold so I am doing this. HAC is the one leader we have with a plan and he speaks his mind. He has made mistakes as we all have, but he does at least admit it, Hadding and Will Williams don’t. Character issues perhaps?
Hi Douglas. I’m glad you have an opportunity to present another view here. Of course, I cannot have Hadding and Will Williams do anything, but maybe one will answer you. However, this comment board can’t host an all-out debate over the whole history of who said what. Maybe you should link to what you think is the most useful information for your position. No more than two links though. Hadding’s Setting The Record Straight takes comments. There might be something from your side there.
No discussion about HAC this time. Just want to state that there is no biological basis of schizophrenia as HS implied in about minute 27. Biological psychiatry is just one more of the System’s lies and no nationalist that I know seems to be aware of this fact (cf. my paper debunking biopsych).
TWN continues to expand in depth and quality with every broadcast.
Saturday afternoons just got a lot better . . .
How did you manage to get Dr. Pierce himself on for that final inspirational message, Carolyn?
That’s pretty impressive . . .
I guess his transhumanist efforts must’ve paid off after all, lol.
–TWN proves that cosmotheism works!
There are no “Goat-Dancers.” This Douglas Pearson person, whoever it is, incorporates Covington’s mythology in his comment.
Thanks for this interesting program.
Do you know the name of that beautiful piece of music at the beginning and the end of the program? I would like to try to find the full version on YouTube.I think it is pan flute.
About Mark Weber, don’t you think that it is possible that he is an infiltrator especially send to wreck the IHR from the inside? That would explain his curious behaviour,like confirming the holocaust and for the rest producing little.
The intro and outro is Hungarian folk music: Sargul mar a fügefa levele played by Arany Zoltan. I’m sure it is with pan flute.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDuoINfdeCY&feature=relmfu I’m glad you like it.
It’s possible that Mark Weber was sent as a mole in the Revisionist movement and eventually got the opportunity to take over IHR (with help from his sponsors). But most observers don’t think that. Instead, the more likely scenario is that his self-serving, cowardly character, combined with his talent for scheming, maneuvering and talking has brought him into this controlling position at IHR. The evidence that he is the one responsible for stopping the strong forward motion the IHR had going in the 1980’s and ’90’s is irrefutable. But he continued to get the support of his Board of Directors.
One thing people should do is not send anymore money to the IHR. Yes, its website is a great resource, but that would remain in any case. We don’t want to get rid of the IHR, but put it under new management. The only new material for years there is ‘current news’ which can be gotten anywhere, Weber’s weekly podcast (lately) … and fundraising. The hard truth is: If you keep asking for money, you will get it. “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time.”
To Hilmar 🙂
I do not believe any of the conspiracy theories about what happened to IHR. I completely accept what Professor Faurisson says about Mark Weber’s weakness of character.
http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2009/04/mark-weber-must-resign-from-institute.html
Carolyn: “Hi Douglas. I’m glad you have an opportunity to present another view here. Of course, I cannot have Hadding and Will Williams do anything, but maybe one will answer you. However, this comment board can’t host an all-out debate over the whole history of who said what. Maybe you should link to what you think is the most useful information for your position. No more than two links though. Hadding’s Setting The Record Straight takes comments. There might be something from your side there.”
—
There will be nothing from Mr. Pearson’s side at Hadding’s Setting the Record Straight because Mr. Pearson, whoever he might be, is one of those “crazy,” (or extremely gullible) folks Hadding described on your show yesterday who believe what Covington writes. As for Mr. Pearson’s statement that Covington “doesn’t lie and go after people in the movement,” well, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary at sites other than at Hadding’s noncounterproductive blog. One good place is the Urban Legends thread in the supposed “high brow” Academy section: http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66243&page=4 There are 24,000+ views there currently. Mr. Pearson’s side is trotted out there often enough by folks like him, but the critical reader should easily be able to tell who is telling the truth and backing it up and who is not. It’s black and white with no gray to the perceptive truth-seeker. I gave this nutshell description there soon after Hadding had exposed Covington for smearing Dr. Pierce as a “closet homosexual”:
—
“HAC can’t even visit NC, Hadding, without risking arrest for the outstanding warrant for his contempt of court in ‘Williams v. Covington’, much less can he reside in his home state again. Tarheels still thank me for that (as do his brothers, Forrest and Ben).
“HAC can’t come out from hiding under his rock, either, without being served by who he calls my “army of Jew lawyers,” forcing him to either appear at a show cause hearing, or grab that bag he keeps packed by the door and run again.
“HAC also can’t ever own anything without my taking it. I’ve already attached his paltry revenue stream several times by going to his publishers whose legal departments understand how a Final Monetary Judgment is properly executed.
“HAC is a miserable, failed fiction writer who can only give away his fantasy books as free downloads in the Internet.
“HAC credits me with putting his CNC out of business, as well as his phony National Front, as well as his phony NSWPP, and he’ll credit me with destroying his phony NorthWest Republic when that finally goes belly up.
“‘Williams v. Covington’ has also made many a serious, perceptive, responsible WRC aware of defendant Covington’s modus vivendi as a professional smear artist and political saboteur. That awareness would have been more difficult for folks to find had it not been for ‘Williams v. Covington’ shining such a bright light on the nut…
“[H]e screwed up and accused me of murder, arson, being a Jew, a queer, a thief and a Federal agent, among other nice things, and wrote these things in his newsletters and distributed them through the USPS. That’s pretty stupid behavior for one who is supposed to be so smart…”
—
Your chat with Hadding about his journey toward truth was enjoyable and informative. I don’t agree with everything he said about the Alliance and Dr. Pierce, but that’s because his perspective on things is a little different from mine. He was right to say things fell apart in the Alliance soon after Dr. Pierce’s death mainly because those who took over were not ideologically sound; they went “Big Tent,” got all Christian friendly as an expedient for what they thought would be more rapid growth. It was good to hear you agree with Hadding that that was a mistake. I disagree with you both when you suggested Dr. Pierce was responsible for that. Yes, the NA BoD “dropped the ball” and allowed our Alliance to be hijacked by incompetent criminals (Erich Gliebe’s partner in crime, the jailbird whose name Hadding couldn’t remember yesterday, is Shawn Walker). But the National Alliance Membership Handbook had plenty to say detailing Alliance ideology as well as plenty to say about seven specific ideologies that were opposed to it. The Alliance got away from Dr. Pierce towards the end of his life. I agree the problem was quality control; the BoD and National Office staff and other cadre, too, compromised on fundamental beliefs (or went along to get along) so were not “Guardians of the Faith,” so to speak. They were too quick to compromise quality for quantity, they stupidly went for the mass appeal approach, like Hadding said (sounding remarkably like Dr. Pierce in doing so.)
I’m glad you appreciate Hadding’s WLPierce Legacy blog, Carolyn. That’s one thing Pierce loyalists can still help with today that’s productive. Another thing they can do, if they can’t type, is to hit the donation button to support that preservation work and expand it. That blog, BTW, came about from my association with Hadding in helping him with the Setting The Record Straight blog.
Harold Covington is a defining issue, and one identifiable enemy of White regeneration who can actually be defeated, or at least neutralized since we do not have the authority to punish our enemies just now.
Here’s an indication of the distorted perception of a Covingtonista: “Hadding just spent almost the whole progrma with Carolyn bitching and moaning about your so called ‘lies and defamation’….”
That’s “Douglas Pearson” talking about this podcast on Harold Covington’s blog.
I checked and out of two hours, the total amount of time spent discussing anything related to Harold Covington was about 12 minutes. That’s about 10% of the time, far from “almost the whole program.”
Many thanks for the link to that YouTube video of the pan flute music.
As for of Mark Weber, the link that Hadding Scott provided to an article about this matter has convinced me that indeed WEAKNESS OF CHARACTER is the explanation for Weber’s curious behaviour.
Thanks for that too.
Can copies of your taped programs be obtained and the cost
We do not make written transcripts, but of course the mp3 is free for download on each program page.
I forgot to mention that in my experience with student organizations I learned that democracy itself tends to be a sham. In any organization of any size, there will be a small clique that really makes all the decisions. Voting is done more on the basis of personal connection or getting-along-by-going along rather than actual understanding of particular issues. I think this is quite true in general elections, and even true to a considerable degree in legislatures. I think many legislators don’t fully understand what they are doing much of the time. This confusion makes it easy for pressure-groups and propaganda to prevail.
On last night’s program, Severus recommended the book by Anthony Ludovici, The False Assumptions of Democracy. http://www.anthonymludovici.com/false.htm I imagine you have read it? I think it’s becoming more acceptable to people in general to question the value of this form of government … when you see it functioning so poorly and clearly not serving the people’s needs.
R.D. Laing on Dreaming in Colour & The Politics of Jew-Voodoo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCFttlQZB8k
Interesting shows. I enjoyed this one. Also, the blogs ‘National-Socialist Worldview’ and ‘The Legacy of Dr. William Pierce’ were very informative. However, ‘Setting the Record Straight’ seems to be just about one Harold character and nothing else. Why should we care? I care about the future of my race, not personal feuds.
Other than that, great show!
@Carol I haven’t read Ludovici at all. I have read a good bit of Plato though. Criticism of democracy was a major focus for Plato. The death of Socrates is really all about the malfunction of democracy.
@Mike I think I explained in the interview that Setting the Record Straight is not about a personal feud. I have no personal dog in the fight against Covington. I undertook it to keep other people’s reputations from being unjustly sullied. At one time or another Covington has smeared almost every significant figure in White Nationalism, and he has been very aggressive about propagating his smears and repeating them over the decades. If you think it is neither here nor there for White Nationalism to have the reputations of its key figures destroyed, I think you just haven’t given the matter much thought.
I’d prefer not to spend any time on Covington, just as I’d prefer not to spend any time replacing a broken window, but so long as some troublemaker is throwing rocks, the repairs have to be done.
My most visited article on there, by the way, is “On the Murder of George Lincoln Rockwell.” http://noncounterproductive.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-murder-of-george-lincoln-rockwell.html Covington and some other crackpots have claimed that Rockwell’s assassin must have had a coconspirator in the NSWPP headquarters. I show that this was not necessary.
Carolyn, congratulations to you and TANSTAAFL on this network.
Israel never claimed Iraq was using its unfinished reactor to produce atomic weapons. They claimed they would when it was finished. Israel bombed it before the fuel rods were placed in the reactor. Otherwise, the area would have been covered with radioactive material.
The U.S. voted with the security council to condemn Israel because no sanctions were proposed. The council was glad Israel had acted.
By way of full disclosure, I support Northwest migration, the Butler plan, and the Northwest Front.
If you have Mr Scott back on, I would like to hear why he attacked Dr Sunic? Dr Sunic gave a favorable review of Mr Covingtons Nothwest Indipendence novels. Mr Scott’s responce was to say that Dr Sunic was committing “professional suicide”.
Is Dr Sunic a Covingtonista ?
Well that’s interesting. An apologist for the State of Israel who is also a Covingtonista.
I never said that Tom Sunic was committing “professional suicide.” This is what I said, last time Sunic heaped extravagant praise on Covington’s fiction: “I think we are seeing the reputation-suicide of Tom Sunic here.”
I think that was a well justified assessment. Sunic likens Covington to Celine and mentions him in the same context as Shakespeare and Homer. Everybody that I know thinks Sunic is off his rocker saying such things, even without consideration of the fact that Covington the fiction-writer is inseparable from Covington the smearmonger. Covington’s personal attacks are even in the very novels that Sunic recommends.
What in hell has Tom Sunic been thinking? I think that’s what a lot of people want to know. Some people have tried to talk to Sunic privately about the matter but it doesn’t do any good.
I think it’s beyond question that Sunic has damaged his own reputation, with his laughable literary assessment but especially by championing such a justly reprehended person.
By the way, Covington’s blog that “Jesse” linked presents fake posts that Covington apparently wrote himself with other real people’s names attached. A few of them are quite obviously written to mock the person whose name was used, but many are not obvious at all, and will fool unaware people. I would not be surprised if most of the comments on Covington’s blogs were in fact written by Covington himself.
Mr Scott
Thank you for replying. I would like to appologize for misstating your words. I was working from memory.
I will contact you on one of your blogs with further questions .
A few comments: In regard to Mark Weber, I incorrectly believed he had a PhD in my post on the Occidental Quarterly. It was an error based on misinformation, rather than a deliberate deception. All the other names I listed have PhD’s, as far as I know. But then, such academic designations are given out like discount store coupons these days so just about everyone has one. Even David Duke has one, though his was given to him as a freebie, rather than actually earned.
In regard to Dr. William Pierce: As a writer of penetrating and insightful observations regarding the race issue, he has few peers. As a leader, however, he was at best a figurehead. His worst transgression was in setting up the National Alliance so that an incompetent buffoon like Erich Gliebe could take power after his death. Pierce needs to take full blame for that. He also needs to take blame for the other defectives he allowed into his midst, notably Kevin Alfred Strom, a sexual deviant who recently served two years in prison for crimes against children.
Finally, though Hadding Scott speaks well and knows his subject matter on a variety of issues, I think it a mistake to tie the white advocacy movement to “National Socialism”, just as I believe it to be a mistake to tie “historical revisionism” and religion to it. The white advocacy movement should promote the preservation and advancement of whites in Europe and North America without weighing it down with side issues. Pierce, to his credit, understood that. Unfortunately, he was a grossly incompetent leader.
Hold Back This Day
The Towers of Eden
To Ward, re Mark Weber
I’m interested in your opinion of Mark Weber. In your comment of last December at the Occidental Quarterly that I referred to on this program, you included him in a list of Ph.D’s whom you designated as strong current leaders, in contrast to the poor past leadership of Dr. William Pierce. Do you consider Weber a strong leader? Weber is not a White Nationalist by his own declaration. He is a historical revisionist. So where does he fit in your firmament of effective White advocates? Thanks.
My impression of Mark Weber is that he “appears” to be widely followed, admired, and influential among white nationalists, mainly because they see him (along with Kevin MacDonald) as knowledgeable about the Jewish issue. He seems to draw big names like David Irving, David Duke, and others to his IHR facility on a regular basis. There must be a reason why.
I don’t know anything more about Mark Weber other than what I glean from the Internet, and so I’m not familiar with any undercurrent of disfavor he has incurred, though listening to your show has given me some hint. In the past, he’s telephoned me on two occasions, inviting me to speak at an IHR conference. I did not attend, mainly because I see holocaust revisionism as irrelevant to WN, and basically a waste of time and resources.
So when I spoke of Mark Weber as a “leader”, I was essentially highlighting the fact that he is a well-known and (seemingly, at least) respected presence in the WN movement.
Ward, I’ve already told you that Mark Weber is not a White Nationalist; he denies being a White Nationalist. So why do you continue to call him a “respected presence” in the WN movement. You don’t know anything about him. That is what I wanted to know and I thank you for answering freely and honestly. He is also no longer a holocaust revisionist, repudiating revisionism in 2008 (although he sometimes still says he is when it’s convenient for fundraising), so you don’t need to fault him for that.
“Big names” like David Irving will go to any venue that will have them when on a book tour (as I’m sure you understand), and Mark Weber allied with Irving when Irving decided, after getting out of an Austrian prison early, to say a million Jews were ‘gassed’ at Treblinka and maybe up to a million others were shot somewhere in Russia … even though no bodies or cremated ashes have ever been found. Maybe that’s what you mean by saying Weber is “knowledgeable about the Jewish issue,” i.e. he knows how to avoid the worst problems with the Jews.
If you want to learn about how respected Mark Weber is, read what Robert Faurisson wrote in his blog here: http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2009/04/mark-weber-must-resign-from-institute.html Hadding Scott posted this link in an earlier comment in this thread. You may not want to read such a long discourse because you’re not interested in H.Revisionism, but if you don’t read it, you cannot speak with any authority at all on Mark Weber, and thus you should not go around talking about your “impression” of how Weber “appears” in a favorable light on the Internet. Although I do appreciate your telling me since I asked you. 🙂
Now I want to add that since Jewish/Israeli power today is greatly facilitated by the continuing and increasing media exposure of “The Holocaust” myth, it is unreasonable to call H. Revisionism “a waste of time and resources.” I wonder if you have any ideas for bringing down Jewish power? I’ll go farther and also remind you that National Socialism in Germany was a premier White Advocacy movement, so it’s pretty hard to disassociate the two. The Allied Powers were definitely NOT, then or now, White advocacy. So do you think your thinking on this might be a little skewed?
Ward Kendall,
It’s nice to see you say something positive about Dr. Pierce for once, but it seems to me that your criticisms of him now and in general are disproportionate. For one thing, I don’t see how the fact that he didn’t have a good plan for succession can outweigh the good that he did while he was alive; perhaps he would have worked that out if he had lived a little longer (being only 68 when he died).
Kevin Strom has done some things that are weird and embarrassing to discuss but as I understand he didn’t commit any “crimes against children.” A professional counselor even declared that he was not a pedophile. If all the authentic girly pictures on his computer were from Met Art then he didn’t have any child porn (although he apparently mistakenly thought some of the models were underage). I think this was a phenomenon of a period when his life was falling apart. He seemed very much a straight arrow while Dr. Pierce was alive. The NA in general, when I was in it, was a bunch of straight arrows and book-readers compared to WN in general.
Meanwhile — I have to say it to illustrate the disproportion — you turn a blind eye and refuse to comment on all the FLAMING degenerates around Harold Covington. I think you know who some of them were and are. I suppose the fact that Covington’s endorsement appears on the cover of the current Greggy Johnson edition of your book has something to do with that. Kevin Strom never buggered boys (Frank Collin) or had a career in torture-porn (“Axis Sally”), as some of Covington’s closest friends have done. Here’s something about Covington’s recent associates: http://noncounterproductive.blogspot.com/p/april-gaede-on-covington-and-his.html
So, if that kind of thing really bothers you then I think you need to ask Greggy to take that Covington endorsement off your book. It makes you look like a terrible hypocrite.
Any person who can spend a significant amount of time at the IHR website, and listen to Mark Weber’s current broadcasts, and still manage to sincerely conclude that Weber and his organization have “abandoned Revisionism” should get to a neurologist.
For those who have a problem with the IHR not focusing as much as it once did on the Holocaust myth need to recognize this reality: In spite of the fact that so much of the traditional Holocaust narrative has been thoroughly debunked, including the severely problematic “six million” number, as well as all of the grotesque stories of sadism and perversion, and that there is a much wider acceptance of Revisionist findings and opinions among the
“respectable historians,” Jewish power and influence has not diminished AT ALL.
And what could be more inspiring to awakening Revisionists and European Nationalists than discovering that so many in the “movement” are a bunch of purists and prima donnas who would sooner bash each other and irresponsibly float rumors about one another than do anything else?
Just a note to anyone interested: Dr. Pierce did not appoint Erich Gliebe or anyone else as his successor. Nor did he have any lieutenants (trusted or otherwise). The NA was really just WLP and a few support personnel. He wanted to set up a method by which future chairmen of the National Alliance would be chosen and also wanted to restructure the NA so that it would be less dependent on its chairman. He had neither the time nor the required number of quality people to do this. He did not know he was dying of cancer until he was already quite ill.
BTW, Hadding’s impersonation of WLP was very good and he did accurately cite one of his favorite phrases! It was usually said in minor frustration rather than in extreme anger, so I never found it that offensive.
I am just clarifying things and putting out information so that people can get their heads on straight. Should I stop doing that?
There is no shortage of people that will try to cater to the biases of the crowd. I don’t see why everybody has to do that. Somebody ought to be telling the unvarnished truth, don’t you think?
I think you ought to remind Mark Weber of that. He seems to have forgotten it. Weber says: “Millions lost their lives.” He wrote that a few years ago and he also said it in a recent podcast.
Professor Faurisson comments: “What right has this man of ours to come out with that estimate in figures? Where exactly in the holocaustic literature is any proof of what he puts forth here to be found? Where, in his own writings, had he ever said and proved it?”
You should probably remind Weber of what he testified under oath about the spurious so-called Goebbels Diaries in 1988 as well.
Because he is, at least in some WN circles. For instance, ask Kevin MacDonald, David Duke, Greg Johnson, Tom Sunic, and others for their opinion of Mark Weber and you’ll find that it’s a positive one. That strikes me as falling within the parameters of “respected presence”. This does not mean that I share this opinion, or that all WN’s share it. I trust that difference is apparent to you.
Just as Jerry Sandusky committed crimes against children that were “dropped” in the course of his trial, so too did Kevin Strom commit crimes that were dropped – or simply ignored.
Strom clearly lusted after children. That is a crime of the heart that (unfortunately) he was not prosecuted for. What else would one call his actions: stalking a ten year old girl at her school, pasting head shots of April Gaede’s daughters on naked pictures of young women, etc. Strom clearly is sexually attracted to pre-teen girls and that is a CRIME of morality and a CRIME of character. No individual like that should be permitted to speak for the cause of white nationalism, in my opinion. That he escaped with a mere 2 year prison sentence was simply his good luck – but NOT an indicator that he was essentially “innocent” of sexual perversions. I believe most WN’s concur.
William Pierce was an excellent writer. However, his failure to set up a proper mechanism by which a successor could rise to the chairmanship of the NA is inexcusable. Furthermore, I neither said nor implied that Pierce “appointed” Erich Gliebe to his position – only that he set up a faulty mechanism which put Gliebe in power. Actually, I (like many others at the time) believed that Strom was the best candidate for the chairmanship but Strom showed himself too weak in the end to assert his demands.
A final note to CY: As for solving the JQ, the only solution I see is mass extermination on a nationwide scale. I’ve said this before. Short of a mass deportation, mass extermination is the only solution. Men like David Duke is too timid to say so, however. So is Kevin MacDonald. So is everyone else in the WN movement except Alex Linder now and William Pierce in the past.
You accuse Kevin Strom of “crimes against children” but in the end you don’t accuse him of crimes. From what I’ve read it seems that he was in love with a ten-year-old girl, which is embarrassing, but he was not charged with any crimes related to it. The licensed counselor that testified in the case doesn’t even see it as pedophilia:
“I do not see Mr. Strom meeting any of the criteria in the DSM IV for being a pedophile…. I find no credible evidence that he has ever engaged in any inappropriate or illegal sexual or other behavior with any child, male or female.” – Harvey Yoder, Licensed Professional Counselor
http://documents.iqradio.org/counselor_report.jpg
You totally ignored my point about the disporportion of your criticisms. Obviously you want to criticize Dr. Pierce with whatever straw you can grasp. Did he refuse to publish your novel? Is that it? A former associate of Dr. Pierce’s goes through a weird phase several years after Dr. Pierce’s death? It must be Dr. Pierce’s fault!
By contrast Harold Covington was very much alive when his friend Frank Collin was buggering boys, and he certainly is aware of his current cohost’s career in torture-porn. Dr. Pierce would never have tolerated that. Covington also continues to this day to try to suppress the fact that Frank Collin was a half-Jew, a fact of which Covington was certainly aware for at least 2 1/2 years before Collin’s arrest and incarceration.
http://noncounterproductive.blogspot.com/2012/05/harold-covington-and-frank-collin.html
One reason why Covington has to suppress this would be that he’s been so busy accusing others of being Jews. I would suggest that Harold Covington’s, and Ward Kendall’s, choice of whom to accuse of “crimes against chilren” is also completely out of whack.
There’s really no comparison between sending presents to a ten-year-old girl and buggering ten-year-old boys. One is a crime against children and the other is embarrassing and pathetic but not a crime. Can you understand the difference?
My recollection is that Kevin Strom was offered the chairmanship but turned it down. It was not a matter, as you seem to suppose, of wanting the position but being “too weak to assert his demands.”
To Ward:
You are confusing me. If YOU don’t share this opinion, why put it forth? KM, DD, GJ, TS are all on record, with you, that Holocaust Revisionism is not “helpful” to White Nationalism. (Revisionists, btw, believe that WN is absolutely not helpful to Holocaust Revisionism.) DD is not as much that way, but still avoids it and chooses “Zionism”, like Weber. So naturally, Mark Weber is now respected by them, even though MW says he is not a WN. But he is a “Big Tent” believer. That’s what really ties these people together.
Are you prepared to testify to a congressional committee on that? LOL. Where did you say that? Why, then, would you be standing up for Mark Weber? And saying WN should not be associated with National Socialism or historical revisionism? You could very easily be someone trying to make me say things to destroy this network. Who do you work for?
I moved this comment and answer from the Henry Ford Program. Circle, please be careful to post to the appropriate program or your comment won’t be published. -cy
Circle
Submitted on 2012/06/28 at 9:38 pm
This question is directed at Hadding. I agree with you that William Pierce was the most effective spokesman for white interests. He was clearly viewed as the greatest threat to Jewish power. My research points to the OKC bombing as a false flag event with one objective being to discredit Pierce and frighten the public away from sympathizing with his message. My question is: Why did Pierce not call out the utter fraudulence of the OKC bombing, the ’93 WTC Attack, the USS Cole, and 9/11?
Considering Pierce was a total news junkie and had unparalleled understanding of their behavior and methods, I have difficulty accepting this wasn’t on his radar. Why would he fight with his hands tied behind his back with respect to these foremost issues?
EvelynHill
Submitted on 2012/06/29 at 2:57 am
WLP thought that OKC bombing was the result of McVeigh’s disgust over the government’s actions at Waco. He did not see it as a false flag. McVeigh had no connection to the NA, so his actions should not have been taken as “discrediting” the NA or WLP. Sure, McVeigh bought a lot of material from National Vanguard Books (including the Turner Diaries) but so did a lot of people. He tried to meet up with NA members through an answering machine service (this was before the Internet) but the unit leader in charge of calling people back didn’t return his call since he thought he “sounded funny.”
So instead of getting in contact with NA members, McVeigh got in contact with folks from Elohim City. Elohim City seemed to be full of agents provocateur and their dupes to me, so I (personally) would not rule out the possibility of a false flag operation.
I think Dr. Pierce was very interested in not wasting time and energy on useless pursuits, and he was not a bit interested in duplicating what many others were already doing.
There were MANY people on patriotard radio discussing conspiracy theories about the Oklahoma City Bombing and 9-11. The vast majority of such people that seem to put so much energy into trying to expose secrets do so at the expense of dealing with the obvious: most of those patriotard personalities are, at least publicly, kosher and non-racial. (That seems to be slightly less true today.)
I think Dr. Pierce saw conspiracy-theorizing in matters of great uncertainty as an energy-drain and a diversion. You can hear him in his speech Our Cause in the 1970s ridicule in passing the conspiracy-theory about fluoridation. I think he saw people heavily focused on conspiracy-theories as afraid to talk about obvious facts that really matter. That’s how I generally see them.
It is not really clear what is to be gained anyway, by arguing that the 9-11 attack was not a manifestation of blowback from pro-Israel foreign policy. Many people saw it that way immediately; although it provided an excuse for Middle-East war, it simultaneously made many people ask whether support for Israel was worth the cost. There is a lot more criticism of U.S. support for Israel today because of the 9-11 attack, especially from the left (e.g. Walt and Mearsheimer).
As for the Oklahoma City Bombing, I think Dr. Pierce made it clear that he respected McVeigh. He respected his individual initiative and willingness to sacrifice himself for a principle. I don’t think he ever discounted that McVeigh had collaborators, maybe some that were not caught. What else should he have said about it? That whole question was absolutely beaten to death, even in mainstream media. I remember the ABC 20/20 piece about it.
A lot of the discussion about the OKC Bombing in the patriotard milieu was very misguided, based for example on the persistent assumption of an AN/FO bomb instead of nitromethane. These people also didn’t understand how debris from the Murrah Building could have ended up across the street, which is really not hard to figure out.
There is a kind of defeatism in the tendency to say that initiatives of individuals or small groups that have any significant impact must always be false-flag operations. I think McVeigh showed the emptiness and cowardice of the militia movement and its vainglorious posturing. I think that they therefore had an emotional investment in denying that one man could do so much. By contrast, I think Dr. Pierce looked at what McVeigh did, creating a giant shaped charge of nitromethane cylinders to blow the front off of a building, and decided quite rationally that yes, one man can do this. The reason why others have not done it is not inability.
There are many things short of blowing up Federal buildings that would be useful for the cause, like waging an information-campaign, or assisting somebody else to do it. Most people that sympathize with the cause won’t even do that. Again, the reason is not inability.
“The Truth” is to be gained, rather than a support for anyone’s political position. This is exactly what I was talking about last Monday night, and I think my guest for tomorrow’s program will probably bring it up, too.
EDIT: IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED that Dr. Pierce died a year after 9/11 when the serious work exposing the impossibility of the official story had not yet come to light. It’s not surprising that he saw it only in terms of how it affected the White racialism movement.
This program did not mention 9/11 or Oklahoma City, so I won’t allow any more comments about those events here.
Hadding is quite right. WLP did tend to look askance at “conspiracy theorists.” He thought that they were likely to fall into the category of people he termed “hobbyists” (although they were by no means the only people who fell into this group). These folks seemed on the surface like they may have some good ideas, and seemed like they might be able to be further educated and then do some work for the White cause. However they never actually did anything; they were too scared of the government (or too interested in only talking to people just like themselves).
He also thought that many of them were rather gullible and would believe almost anything. They were not of the quality he was looking for. They were also unlikely to be productive; they would flint from one fad to the next.
But conspiracy theorists were far fewer in those days than they are now. A lot of people looking for answers to what is going on and looking for alternatives to the mainstream media find Alex Jones — and then get totally misdirected. Carolyn, I hope you will someday do a show on him, on his Jewish connections, and on his lies. He fools so many people.
Back to false flags: The Jewish mind favors doing things “by way of deception” and this certainly encompasses false flag operations. They do work for them, but when truly exposed they work against them in a potent manner.
Thanks for the response Hadding.
I noticed Pierce’s contempt for conspiracy theorists in his broadcasts. It’s true that once the racial component is understood it becomes glaringly obvious how out in the open this take over is. Also, I can sympathize with Pierce of not wanting to be roped in with the conspiracy theorists of the 90s and 00s. Most have done incredible damage by making outrageous claims, playing loose with facts, avoiding politically-incorrect connections altogether, keeping strange physical appearances, and running their organizations like internet marketing operations.
But Pierce was none of the above. The work he did was very tight and damning and his motives were pure. It’s unlikely I would have any understanding of racial issues if it were not for him. If he decided to expose the utter fraudulence of these false-flag events, his material would have been well documented and most convincing.
After reading your post, you are suggesting Pierce genuinely believed Usama bin Laden masterminded 9/11, “Al Qaeda” bombed the US Cole, McVeigh wasn’t a useful idiot of a larger agenda, and the ’93 WTC attack was executed by Islamists with no outside assistance. I figured he knew the real score, but was taking some kind of strategic position.
Our enemies have given us tremendous opportunities to deliver devastating blows in exposing these events. Our most credible and articulate are side-stepping or taking soft positions on these issues because of the muddled water deliberately surrounding them. Our opponents are probably laughing at our timidity. They deceive apologetically and lie boldly with such regularity while our side prefers to play it safe. These false-flag events are so powerful because they illustrate how treacherous and treasonous our enemies are, how well-developed and entrenched their networks are, and their total control over our media. If channeled properly, these could be catalyzing issues with vast emotional and psychological effects.
As the real details are getting out, awareness is growing. The newer crop is less compromising and more receptive to the complete picture anyway.
A great point you made is the necessity of having a source telling the unvarnished truth–as ugly and uncomfortable as it may be. The politically-correct leftist criticism of Israel and Ron Paul’s blowback position are steps in the right direction, but are simply not accurate. If the truth was understood, this criticism would heighten exponentially to rage. In a struggle for our very survival, how is it advantageous to fight with our hands tied behind our backs?
The most powerful arguments are not going to be ones that require a tenuous proof with plenty of room for doubt. Dr. Pierce tended to use arguments that relied on well known or easily verifiable facts with no room for doubt. That’s just sound rhetoric.
From that solid foundation he would lead the listener out of his comfort-zone into some conclusions about Jewish power, especially control of mass-media and abuse of that power to the detriment of the White race.
That’s the kind of argument that Dr. Pierce made. If you inject into it some claim that is questionable or hard-to-verify, it loses its power.
I remember when I was writing ADVs about Iraq in early 2003, I mentioned in passing the attack on the World Trade Center saying something to the effect of, maybe or maybe not Israel had something to do with it. I left it to the listener to have his own opinion, because it was not essential to my presentation. I got a letter from some crank excoriating me for not steadfastly espousing some variant of the 911 Truth position. In this person’s view I was NOT ALLOWED to bypass the question. No, I should distract all attention from my argument about Iraq by making a controversial claim that I had researched very little. Some people don’t seem to understand that when you are teaching people something, keeping it simple is the way to go.
“Konrad Heiden was the first person to change the diminutive for National Socialist (‘Naso’) to the word ‘Nazi’ – a Bavarian slang word meaning ‘simpleton’….”
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/hitler/articles/99ClareBrushUp.htm
I don’t trust anything that Marcuse says on his website, but I know Konrad Heiden put out a lot of false “anecdotes” about Hitler.