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.
The U.S. population is 313.9 million in 2012, not 350 million as I estimated. Canada only 35 million (2011)!
I think bells are often cast in bronze or related alloys.
Here’s a pic folks:
Fuehrerglocke
That greenish tinge makes me think that, yes, it’s bronze.
Carolyn – I think it was Henry Ford himself who distinguished between industry and finance. These days they both get lumped together as business.
Sure they may all make money but its finance (the jewish speciality!) that mainly consists of moving money around rather than creating real wealth.
The end result of the jewish debt based economy is that a greater share of total wealth is in their hands when the dust settles. Whether thats in terms of land, property, gold etc or control of productive industry.
Nice picture, thanks. The one I saw didn’t show the green tinge so well. Turns out this bell’s message is about how happy the people of the town are that Austria in 1938 became part of the Reich (called the Ostmark) and that Adolf Hitler is their Fuehrer. So they had the bell made to honor and celebrate these facts. This is what the despicable Jews can’t stand and don’t want anyone to know, either. So they want to bury the bell 10 feet under!
I sure hope they don’t get their hands on it.
Thanks for standing up against the fag menace. If some of them want to contribute money from the sidelines – fine. But, perverts should not be in positions of power or influence.
I spoke with and observed Jonathan Bowden many times. He had a brilliant mind and was a dazzling orator. But, most people were too intimidated or distracted by his intelligence to see the socially inept, lost figure he was. I don’t know if he was queer.
I wonder if the fags have infiltrated white nationalism anymore than they have other groups from the Catholic Church to the ADL.
Back on your homo obssession again, eh Carolyn? You seem to think everybody is homo. Are you projecting? Are you also a homo Carolyn? Ever have kids? Why not?
No, I’m not projecting. I have likened the homosexual mindset to that of the Jew. You’re kind of reinforcing that by implying that I should not mention homos. It is certainly a very sensitive subject, isn’t it. Does talking about Jews mean I have a Jew Obsession? I gave my reasons why I think certain people are homosexual, and people are free to write in this space and tell me I am wrong about them. If they did so, I would tend to believe them. Yes, there really are way too many of them. Why so many?
The point is, you have no facts, only “feelings”. It works like this- the person making the assertion needs to prove his facts. You cast aspersions on everybody based on your “feelings”, and then expect others to refute it? Now you claim Patrick McGoohan looked gay? You exercise absolutely zero restraint when attacking people, only demonstrating why catty women in such a “movement” are about as much of a liability as queers are. So Carolyn, why no children? Huh? After all, someone with stringent standards such as yourself who wants to put fat people in camps and casually accuses people she has never even known personally of homosexuality should also be held to the same standards they impose of others.
On 3/11/1938 liberated the Unifier and Leader of all Germans, Adolf Hitler, the Eastmark from the yoke of folks-foreign vexation (emotional depression leading to physical oppression) and led her (the Eastmark) home into the Great-German Realm.
Ostmark refers to a border of a nation in the East like Denmark refers to the border of the Danes to Germany (or the respective German state before German Unification many centuries ago). Österreich or Austerichi in Latin literally mean East in the (German) Realm but became synomynous with the separate state of the Habsburgs and was therefore called Ostmark by Pan-Germans (Alldeutsche).
Joche (yoke) is a poetic/dated form of Joch and gives this text “an eternal character written in stone” so to speak.
I’m not going by “feelings” at all. That is a stock attack on women that is a disservice to the women of your race. In the program, I used the word “think”, not “feel.” But your feelings are clearly running high; you are really upset
I cast aspersions on everybody? Really?
I did say that, but notice I didn’t say he “feels” gay to me. I was wrong (maybe). However, I would venture to say that the reason he is given the big review at C-C is because of his looks and the type of roles that he plays. He is an actor that queer men like to watch; he doesn’t have to be queer himself. McGoohan lived to be 80 years, so why are there no pictures in this long article of him as an old man? At least one might have been in order, but that’s not the McGoohan they’re interested in. He did Ibsen’s Brand in the 1950’s.
In his review or critique, Collin Cleary wrote: “In the role of Brand, McGoohan is simply stunning. As his co-star Peter Sallis has noted, McGoohan delivered the only possible interpretation of the role: he plays Brand as if he is a prophet in a constant state of religious ecstasy. He does not speak, he oraculates. He barely seems to notice anyone else, so lost is he in what appears to be a constant communion with God. And he seems built out of fire and brimstone, continually inveighing against all and everything, and at an emotional pitch that is simply exhausting to watch. As is the case with many of McGoohan’s performances, at times he is a bit over-the-top – but the role demands this. Brand is a man of lofty ideals, absolute moral certainty, and the conviction that it is his job to save the world. One simply can’t “underplay” a character like that.”
And: “McGoohan had a reputation in the industry as excessively moralistic and prudish. Most notoriously, he would not kiss his leading ladies. In all eighty-six episodes of Danger Man, McGoohan’s John Drake – a dashing secret agent during the heyday of dashing (and womanizing) secret agents – never once kisses or even flirts with any of the beautiful women who frequently starred opposite him.”
Why do you call me ‘catty?’ Once again, it seems awfully like the old prohibition against naming someone as a Jew. For many, it is still considered bad taste. If being queer is perfectly alright, then why the uproar when someone points them out? If I am wrong, then I can be corrected, as I was with Patrick McGoohan. Is he the only one you can vouch for? I don’t think it’s alright for queers to expect not to be identified; it’s the same as jews changing their names, etc. so as not to be identified as jews.
Why are you upset with standards? Your questions of me are ridiculous, as I would have to tell my entire life story to explain what you want to know. Not something I’m going to do, nor am I responsible to do. Your mention of not liking to put people in camps reveals where your concerns are and why you take this so emotionally.
“He is an actor that queer men like to watch; he doesn’t have to be queer himself.”
Nonsense. You just pulled that out of your A**. You mean the homo crowd were all avid viewers of McGoohan’s Prisoner series? What a crock! And people dissecting movies like Batman, Superman, and the Lone Ranger for Jungian Western Heroic archetypes? Well, of course all queers! So sayeth Carolyn, the barren spinster. Riiiiight. Actually, your own obsession with all things homo is a greater indicator of your own inclinations than somebody doing a review on traditionalist elements in modern Marvel remakes. So what is it you’re trying to tell us, Carolyn?
“If I am wrong, then I can be corrected, as I was with Patrick McGoohan. Is he the only one you can vouch for?”
Who vouches for you? Why no kids or grand kids at your ripe old age, eh old lady? Again, woman, when you sit in judgment of men, you need to provide proof beyond mere guilt by association with Johnson or Donovan. You claim my query of you is ridiculous, but Parrott’s a queer since he married an older woman with kids and hasn’t yet had his own? What’s your excuse? Hmmmmm? And why the hypocritical double standard? You can dish it out, but you sure can’t take it.
“Your mention of not liking to put people in camps reveals where your concerns are and why you take this so emotionally.”
You’re right, Carolyn. I have both a visceral and intellectual reaction to somebody who has totalitarian fantasies about incarcerating people in gulags on the slightest whim. You, on the other hand, who sounds like she suffers from narcissist personality disorder and a degree of sociopathy, are naturally immune to such concerns. Being out of touch with reality is also one of the symptoms, dear old lady, and if you think normal White Americans are going to flock to someone like yourself who spouts such delusional rubbish…….you know how the rest goes. Then again, it might be that you’re just content with your fan base of maladapted Hollywood nazis who probably believe that Hitler himself would have incarcerated and perhaps even gassed subhumans for the crime of obesity. Enjoy your circle jerk.
Pathetic.
Thanks for this translation of the inscription on the bell, Markus. It’s really great to have it.
You are welcome, Carolyn.
I deliberately translated Reich into Realm, as Reich has three meanings and does not only refer to an political empire.
Deutsches Reich means Realm, where Germans can express themselves.
It means Empire, where Germans execute power.
But reich also means rich if written in small letters (reich and Reich sound alike). So, the fusion of the collective Realm and a unified state of all German tribes enriches the German collective body both spiritually as well as materially.
No wonder, Germany’s enemies demonize “Das Reich” and want this term never be heard again.
I don’t know of an English term that combines these three attributes of Reich, as Imperium or Empire emphasizes too much on military power, IMO.
The bell was used for decades after 1945 in the town of Wolfpassing!
Interesting is that Adolf is Old-German for edler Wolf or noble Wolf. Wolf or Wolfi is short for Adolf.
I’m philosophizing again….I’m not suggesting anything or interpret, I’m just pointing out the coincidences. 🙂
Carolyn, I have to correct you on one account – Michael O’Meara is openly homosexual, whereas Matt Parrot is straight.
Tom if Carolyn were the narcissist you claim her to be would she post your attacks? Seems to me the fact that she has given you so much space to attack her disproves the basis of your attacks.
Here is a list of gay movement leaders. It goes on and on. All jewish.
http://www.filedropper.com/thelist3
its an mp3. i dont remember where i got it.
it wont last long however, itll disappear after a few days or if no one downloads it.
Dana – Thanks about Michael O’Meara. I kind of thought I remembered that but didn’t want to say without being sure. As I understand, he was a regular part of the team at the beginning of Counter-Currents. And as to that name, wouldn’t one be within reason to think that Greg Johnson was aware of the double entendre of ‘counter-currents?’ That being: flowing “against time” but also against the normal direction of sexual identity/activity? He is too intelligent not to be so aware.
If Matt Parrott is fully straight, and he may well be, he sure likes to hang out with homosexuals. Is it that when one joins the WN movement and attends conferences (as Parrott liked/likes to do), one meets so many of them? Something to consider. Is it that he is more comfortable with queers than straights? What would make a person that way? Usually because it feels less threatening. In this case, the sexual “threat” or pressure would come from females. As a married man with children, he is freed from that.
I also collaborate with multiple women, raising suspicion that I may be a transsexual or hermaphrodite.
Hi Matt,
Please tell us why you seem to be the only non-homosexual featured writer at Counter-Currents (among the living, that is). Is it because you get paid for your articles? By the word? And do you think that non-traditional sexual orientations don’t do any harm in traditional societies – which is the kind of society you propound, as I understand it.
Also, along with women, you like to involve yourself with youths. I can’t help but notice.
Carolyn,
There’s a strong perception bias going on here. The majority of C-C authors are indisputably straight.
Sometimes I get paid, sometimes I don’t. I appreciate the support when I receive it, but it’s certainly not enough to sway me to write against my conscience…presuming that’s the nasty little inference you’re making.
I believe acting on non-traditional sexual orientations is deviant, sinful, and should be discouraged. My articles at C-C have consistently been critical of the gay community and their impact on the traditional family.
There’s nothing confusing or hypocritical about dealing with the foibles of those around us. You’ve chosen to collaborate with a man who’s married to a Jewess, haven’t you? You’ve chosen to work with him despite that problem, and I’ve chosen to work alongside some folks who have different problems.
Wait, what? Am I being accused of pedophilia, now?
One of my fondest memories of Dr. Pierce was when he roared with laughter during one our many phone conversations. Specifically to do with one of my bulletins back then, wherein I stated to the effect that: ” How in hell could the Spartans have won at Thermopylae if they had to protect their REARS !! “
Carolyn,
I support you and your work, and that hold true for Tan also. I will continue to support TWN financially. I think that it is a good thing to question the sexuality of leaders in the pro-White movement, such as it is. However, speculating publicly and not presenting any evidence is not healthy. Seems like a reoccurring theme of yours, somewhat of your hobbyhorse. You come off sounding like the East German Stazi looking in everyone’s crawl spaces for banned books, art, and music recordings; accusing people at random of being homos is more corrosive than having a few closet homos in the woodpile.
Before anyone accuses me of running to the support of my gay fellows, I have seven biological children.
Stay Stong
There’s a strong evasion bias going on here. I say “writers”; you say “authors.” I have not brought up the books that C-C has published (as far as looking at all the authors), but have put my attention on the blog writers such as yourself. That is what is being read at the site. So, sticking with those current writers, which ones are “indisputably straight?” Let’s get real and give names.
Don’t imagine nastiness that isn’t there. I’m looking for answers. You’re implying that you are perfectly comfortable at C-C, and it’s not because of money. What is it then? You are in intellectual agreement with Greg Johnson’s weltanschauung?
I note the “acting on,” and also that you use the word “gay.” Same as the Church says. You have now joined an Orthodox Christian sect, I believe. I would say your articles at C-C have included some mild criticism of some aspects of the “gay community” but not homosexuality in itself. You take the liberal view, I suppose, that it’s an inborn determination for which people cannot be faulted. So what have you suggested that the “gay community” should do about their negative impact on the traditional family?
And do you consider yourself to be part of a traditional family? Would two men or two women who adopt make up a traditional family, in your eyes?
There is nothing similar in the two situations. Tan’s wife is HALF Jewish through her father and she has never practiced Judaism. According to Judaics, she is not even Jewish, though what they think doesn’t matter. Tan himself is 100% White, which no one doubts. I have never thought of Tan’s wife as “a problem;” therefore I have never and still don’t feel any need to make excuses for it. You would have gladly collaborated with Tan if you had the opportunity, but I would not collaborate with Greg Johnson & company when I did have the opportunity.
You’re saying you have chosen to work alongside folks who are fully homosexual and who act on it (practice it) in real time. If you don’t approve of it, why do it? You haven’t answered that.
No, but you said you worked with women as well as homosexuals, so I thought I’d add the youth to the mix. What is your association with the Traditional Youth Network? You are the one who is using it as your website. Do you think your association with homosexuals is healthy when at the same time you are advising youth? Let’s not play hide and seek, but let’s bring these issues out into the open.
I agree with this sentiment, though your analogy is flawed. I acknowledge that my problem is indeed a problem, that even unwitting miscegenation is bad because it is bad for the White race, not something to be excused, much less advocated.
I value your thoughts and work Matt, and like you personally. Likewise for Greg Johnson and Gregory Hood. The anti-White and anti-“anti-semitic” attitudes espoused by Michael O’Meara are to me more deplorable than the promotion of homosexuality by James O’Meara and Jack Donovan.
Hi karl,
I’m not accusing people at random at all. The same thing was said about Joe McCarthy, wasn’t it. I came up with lots of evidence for Greg Johnson, yet Matt still said right around the time of the final demise of Voice of Reason (in a skype conversation) that there was no evidence that GJ was gay. Matt likes to use the word “gay.” The fact is C-C is a site that hosts homosexuals and promotes a homo-friendly form of WN. For that reason, people should be wary of everyone there.
What we have is not “a few closet homos in the woodpile.” I would say you are afraid of how many hundreds will come out if the woodpile is shook up. I don’t think I’m like East German Stazi — more like Heinrich Himmler. 🙂
Mr. Parrott,
Tanstaafl openly admits that he made a mistake in the past, he discourages people from making the same mistake, and he disclosed his personal situation when he didn’t have to out of a desire to be completely honest.
Greg Johnson currently tells people that sodomy is ok, he currently promotes the work of James O’Meara who claims that homosexuals have virtues that heterosexuals lack, and he is unwilling to fully disclose his own sexual preferences and activities (at least the last I heard, this last point might have changed).
Comparing the two men is insulting to Tanstaafl. I don’t wish to speak for Carolyn, but if Tanstaafl tried to justify his past mistakes a la John Derbyshire, I don’t think she would work with him, and I’m fairly certain that she would bring the issue up every time they appeared on the same program.
Your situation is completely embarrassing. I remember specifically a moment when you were on the Tribal Theocrat show (I believe it was the episode when Scott Terry was talking about his CPAC experience); you all were discussing kinism and Christian Gray was giving out kinist web sites; he mentioned shotgunwildatheart, then he mentioned that you write for C-C, and you quickly added that C-C “is not a kinist site”. What an understatement! You forgot to add, “it’s actually a site that promotes sodomy, Nietzschean philosophy, and the works of numerous Christ-bashers like Revilo Oliver.”
We are all judged by the company we keep. And even if you are not corrupted by the money you receive from C-C, as a Christian you surely must be aware of the need to avoid not just sin itself, but the appearance of sin as well. Do you really believe you are fulfilling your duty to be a defender of the Faith?
To quote my own recent article:
“The Christians who associate with the likes of Johnson and O’Meara, while not living in the city of Sodom themselves, look back at Sodom, hoping that something good will come out of it. I pray that these Christians change their ways, and begin imitating Lot instead of his foolish wife, and leave the Sodomites alone with the hellfire they have brought upon themselves.”
Clement,
My most recent C-C article happened to be in defense of the faith. It turns out that C-C has proven an excellent vehicle for me to promote and defend Christianity.
Imagine that.
I’m a humble sinner, and will continue to surround myself exclusively with sinners until I shuffle off.
What a statement. As if you couldn’t “promote and defend Christianity” in many other places just as well. And, as a matter of fact, that most recent article of yours does not exactly “promote” Christianity. You write:
and
Matt, if you think that even this kind of Christianity would tolerate those fags you hang out with, you’re not part of the traditionalist vanguard you recommend. Nor does the Golden Dawn tolerate them. But of course you don’t think that, so you are being dishonest. I would say that most people would agree that you are far from being anything like the brave leaders of the Golden Dawn, or any part of a “martial vanguard.” Dream on. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2384710/Erotic-Lives-Superheroes-imagined-new-book-gay-Batman.html
I want to be civil and fair, but you tend to respond to comments directed at you very selectively – whatever you see in them that you can shake off with a clever phrase or two rather than answer sincerely. I hope you will reply to my questions and concerns that I posted on 8-06 at 10:53am. As I said, let’s not play hide and seek.
By that logic, tell me which websites would it be inappropriate for traditionalist Christians to work for? Pornography websites? Anti-racist websites? Communist websites? Would any of those be ok as long as they allowed you to post articles promoting Christianity?
Carolyn, I completely agree. I’m still interested in hearing Matt’s defense of comparing Tanstaafl to Johnson.
By the way, spending time with unrepentant sinners for the purpose of witnessing to them is NOT the same as being paid by anti-Christians and promoting their website to unsuspecting Christians without making any disclaimer as to the site’s content.
Don’t try to excuse your shameless conduct by turning it into “I’m a true Christian because I embrace sinners”. This is the same argument used by every subversive movement in Christianity over the last 100 years.
Clement,
It’s been established here that Counter-Currents is primarily by and for a sinister cabal of homosexuals. I don’t believe that’s the case. The majority of active writers writing right now are straight, and the overwhelmingly majority of the content does not even relate to homosexuality. Its record on the issue is certainly less anti-homosexual than most sites, but to purport that it’s a vehicle for promoting homosexuality is downright unhinged.
Carolyn has asked me to aggregate a nasty little list of authors who are openly homosexual, probable closet cases, probable heterosexuals, and unknowns. That’s stupid, especially by house rules which cast doubt on my own sexuality because my own wife and I haven’t managed to produce any offspring. It’s insulting, degrading, divisive, and vulgar.
Like I owe you gutter snipes a full accounting of my wife’s medical situation.
tWn doesn’t have a disclaimer at the top of the articles drawing attention to Tan’s mischling family or Carolyn’s own personal situation. I’m not asking it to. I’m not the one trying to rip apart the nationalist community by insisting on a SPLC-style airing of everybody’s baggage which even the SPLC hesitates to stoop to.
Assuming you are telling the truth and know what you’re talking about, a majority is 51%. That leaves 49% that can be queer – a huge, out-of-proportion number. Naturally the content of C-C is not majority homosexual because it purports to be a White Nationalist site and organization, but it is way more about homosexual issues than any other WN site or org. and also we must remember that so much of the material is written by homosexuals.
I hope you’re not including the posts of previously written work by historical or at least deceased authors, which makes up a large percentage of the posts there.
No matter how friendly Tan might be toward Matt Parrott, MP will not reciprocate it, and this has been the case since Tan joined with Carolyn to create tWn. Tan is not forgiven for that. The mischling thing has never been a problem for these people, ie the C-C crowd, the AmRen crowd, the TOO crowd and so on. It’s only a problem for hard-core antisemites, of which you, Matt, are not one.
And just what is “Carolyn’s own personal situation” that would warrant a disclaimer? That Carolyn doesn’t have children??? I can’t think of anything else Matt would mean by that nasty little innuendo. He doesn’t have the balls to even say it, but leaves people wondering.
Are all women without children to wear a sign around their necks proclaiming their “shame?” In Matt Parrott’s Traditionalist society, that perhaps would be the case since, as I’ve said before, in his perfect society woman’s only purpose is to bear and raise children (the womb of man), with which the race can perpetuate itself.
But why would a man who sees himself as a Traditionalist, at the age of 25 or so marry a woman with a 15 year old daughter? Is that the best way to guarantee a family of his own? But we’ll never know because Matt Parrott is as much of a chameleon as you can find. And we don’t care either. The way Matt reveals himself is full of contradictions, but that doesn’t mean he’s homosexual. It just means he is what he is.
Since I am the only one behaving as a “gutter snipe” here, Matt should not slander anyone else by saying “you gutter snipes (plural).” And, by the way, I have been lied about and called names that did not fit the facts by Greg Johnson on C-C (comments) and on VNN Forum when I was not even on either one to defend myself! How brave is that?
Finally, just what nationalist community do you belong to, Matt, that I am trying to rip apart? Well, there is the North American New Right, based in San Francisco. But I’ve made it plain that I don’t consider it an organization that is good for Whites. Remember, The White Network is about Whites Talking to Whites. Any conversation between White people is worthwhile.
Matt,
You don’t give any straight answers to my questions.
I’d still like to know:
1) would you still compare Tanstaafl’s situation to Johnson’s given what I have said.
2) Which websites would it be inappropriate for traditionalist Christians to work for? Pornography websites? Anti-racist websites? Communist websites? Would any of those be ok as long as they allowed you to post articles promoting Christianity?
Note that in my comments I have not taken issue with any mistakes that people have made in the past, as anyone born into this degenerate society is likely to make some quite serious ones. The only thing I’m concerned about is the message that people are currently promoting and activity they are currently engaged in.
You say that it’s “unhinged” to claim that C-C is a “vehicle for promoting homosexuality”. This leads me to ask:
Are you saying it is ok to work for C-C because it does not promote homosexuality, but it would NOT be ok to work for C-C if it did promote homosexuality?
Carolyn,
Taken from positively any angle, the majority of C-C content is non-homosexual.
I will continue to frown in Tan’s general direction as long as he continues to actively assist and promote your campaign of character assassination on dedicated White Advocates. If he were unfriendly toward me, but refrained from this farce, I would be friendly in return.
Tan will be forgiven as soon as the behavior ceases. No grudges.
It’s still not a problem. He’s clearly and directly explained it to my satisfaction. My point in raising it was to try to drive home how obviously pointless and destructive it is for White Advocates to make a game out of digging into one another’s private affairs for dirt.
Clement,
Dr. Johnson’s alleged sexual inclination, Tan’s relationship with his in-laws, Carolyn’s fecundity, and my wife’s medical situation are not public matters. That’s fine and good that Tan’s decided to air out his own personal business, but that does not grant him (or Carolyn, by association) the moral right to demand a full accounting of the private affairs of everybody participating in the C-C project.
If they’re willing to tolerate my preaching, and there’s an audience, then I’m inclined to use it as a vehicle. C-C doesn’t even come close to what I stooped to in posting at InMalaFide, a “game” blog. My posts there promoted our message to a whole new audience, and I don’t regret it.
I don’t believe C-C promotes homosexuality. Some of the material flirts with creating safe spaces for homosexuality within WN, and some of the material could be appropriately described as homosexual historical revisionism. That’s not the same thing as promoting homosexuality, and I really don’t see how anybody going through the archives would conclude that promoting homosexuality is at the top of its agenda.
If C-C actually promoted homosexuality, I would not contribute. If C-C actually supported the contemporary gay agenda, I would not contribute. If C-C adopted an editorial line for promoting homosexuality, I would not contribute. If C-C were what you’re making it out to be, I wouldn’t be a part of it.
Fortunately, it’s not.
Matthew Parrott said:
This is a strangely complex declaration. You say that C-C doesn’t promote homosexuality, but then you say that C-C promotes acceptance of homosexuality, and also publishes “homosexual historical revisionism.” You say that this is not the same as promoting homosexuality, but I doubt that many people would find this a tenable distinction.
I am only suggesting that you seem to be making excuses and to some extent deceiving yourself. I don’t care much about whether Greggy is queer as much as I care about what seem to be manifestations of that, particularly his limp-wristed approach to the Holohoax and the dodgy rhetoric that he uses to try to justify a patently unjustifiable position. I wouldn’t trust that guy.
This is clearly wrong.
Consider the following scenario:
Someone comes out as a white nationalist, but argues that the pro-white movement should accept Jews. When asked if he is Jewish or has any Jewish family, he refuses to answer, saying that it is irrelevant.
What would you do in that situation? Would you just let it go, or demand a fuller explanation of his personal life?
I’m not demanding “a full accounting of the private affairs of everybody participating in the C-C project”, merely an answer to a simple question from people saying that homosexuality is acceptable.
I want to explore this point more fully.
Does Johnson’s article “Homosexuality & White Nationalism” promote homosexuality? If no, then I’m not sure how you would define “the promotion of homosexuality”. If yes, then you must agree with the statement “the editor of C-C promotes homosexuality”.
Again, does O’Meara’s book “The Homo and the Negro” promote homosexuality? If yes, then you must agree with the statement “C-C publishes books that promote homosexuality”.
Let me get this straight:
You think it would be ok for a Christian to be paid by a pornography website to produce original content to be published on that website? If this is really your opinion, I don’t know what to say, except maybe that you should ask a priest at your church if he thinks this would be acceptable behavior.
Hadding,
Of course, this all comes down to Greg’s failure to pass your and Carolyn’s litmus test on Holocaust Revisionism. Rather than going after Greg’s scholarship and reasoning on that topic, perhaps leading to a productive debate, you and Carolyn are diving into the gutter.
Clement,
Jewishness is an incompatible and integrally hostile identity. Homosexuality is a flaw. A better example might be a feminist. I would describe Carolyn as a feminist, and I think her feminist perspective is problematic for our cause and against my moral principles. That being said, feminist Whites also belong to our extended family and I intend to reason with and work with and influence them rather than casting them out as it’s appropriate to do with Jews.
Matt,
I see that in responding to me and Hadding you avoided defending your statement that C-C does not promote homosexuality.
True or false: the editor of C-C promotes homosexuality?
Clement,
False.
Even the most egregious piece takes pains to distance itself from the “gay lobby”, and encourages tolerating them. Tolerating a group is not the same as endorsing the group or its behavior. I tolerate feminists, but I don’t encourage or support feminism.
I’m not in agreement with that piece, but the overarching project is one I’m fully on board with. I work with all sorts of people I disagree with on all sorts of matters.
Holocaust Revisionism is not on my mind at all. I just want to point out that your lumping Hadding and me together as a team is exactly what Greg Johnson was doing on the VNN Forum last year, and also in his comment section when a couple people brought up the issue of his very unpopular essay on “White Nationalism and the Holocaust.” Greg received criticism from a lot of people there, but it seems what bothered him the most was what Hadding Scott and Carolyn Yeager said (separately, and I posted very little). Greg cannot take any criticism or correction without flaring up and going overboard with his retaliation. And it turns out you are the same, Matt.
Hadding and I were not working together then in those 700 plus TOO comments, and we are not working together now.
Greg’s “scholarship and reasoning” as you put it, is highly overrated, especially by Greg himself. Neither Hadding nor I said anything to Greg that reflected being “in the gutter,” again as you put it. Where does all this come from: gutter snipe, in the gutter, “nasty,” digging for dirt? Just who is the dirty party here? I demand that you produce evidence in the form of direct quotes of “diving into the gutter” toward Greg Johnson (or yourself) from Hadding or me. And if you can’t do that, then take back your ill-advised words.
Are you saying that in order to promote homosexuality you have to be in agreement with the mainstream leftist gay lobby?
Are you saying that you can argue that there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts and at the same time not be promoting homosexuality?
Johnson and O’Meara go far beyond arguing for tolerance. They say that any opposition to sodomy is Jewish and therefore inherently against white interests. To quote Johnson: “Queer-bashers are in the grip of Jewry without even knowing it.” What greater insult can you throw at a WN than accusing him of being “in the grip of Jewry”? And you all argue that the anti-sodomy crowd is the one responsible for divisive arguments?
Ha! The dreaded F-word … feminist!! The label that self-identified “traditionalist” men like big-hipped Matt like to attach to intelligent women who don’t stay quiet and in their place. A woman who has the nerve to criticize holy White Nationalist queer men must be pointed out and condemned. But pointing out the sodomites themselves … oh, never! That’s why you want a patriarchy, so you can have it all your own way. Not so you can encourage responsibility.
I have made the point quite well, I think, in other places, that homosexuality functions exactly like Jewishness. Faggotry is an incompatible and hostile identity in a community of normal, heterosexual men and women. Queerness is not a “flaw”, like a birthmark on the skin, or weak eyesight; that is Matt’s idea, which would cause anyone to question his own identity or ideology (is he a liberal?) for saying that.
Just remembered, I also asked you, Matt, whether you considered your marriage a traditional one.
Big-hipped?
I do.
A much better analogy than feminism would be a vice like drug addiction or pornography. So, if someone came out as a white nationalist and argued that a major problem for the pro-white movement is that it’s too anti-drug/anti-pornography, and argued that drug use/pornography should be accepted, but then refused to answer if he was personally involved with these vices, you would just leave it at that?
I appreciate that we sometimes have to work with people we don’t quite agree with to advance a cause, but I will never ally myself with homosexuals for the simple fact that I believe homosexuality should be illegal. How can I consider people allies if I think they should be rounded up once we come to power?
Looks like I am wrong about that, Matt. I saw a photograph of you in which your legs and hips looked really thick. Maybe there was something odd about the way that photo was taken but it made quite an impression on me. I just saw another picture (with your wife presumably?) and you look normal. So I do apologize for that mistake, and actually I am glad I have it straightened out in my own mind. It often takes speaking out on something to accomplish that, otherwise the mistaken impression simply remains. [Corrected comment; original was deleted -cy]
Sorry I had to delete your second sentence – in the interests of keeping the insult words to a minimum. You imply that one has no right to question your personal life, but it’s you who keeps referring to intrusions (by me, mostly) into “my wife’s medical condition.” No one asked about that, nor has anyone picked up on your repeated mentions of it. Seems to be one of those things that you are using to distract from the real issues and questions. Sounds like you’re blaming your own childlessness on your wife. Hey, you might both be very happy in your marriage; I’m glad for you if you are. But let’s keep the conversation to more provable issues. I am not interested in your private life at all, except as it influences your public life. For instance:
How does marrying a woman 15 years your senior [correction 10pm central time: maybe closer to 10 yrs?], when you are a young man, constitute a traditional marriage? For family-making purposes it is far from ideal. In a Traditional Society it would have to be classified as non-traditional. Especially when the woman has already borne 3(is it? I don’t know for a fact) children from another man. It is certainly alright, and your right, but keeping in the Traditional lifestyle it is not.
BTW, I have experience in relationships with younger men. They can be great just for the two of you, but not particularly conducive to family-raising.
I recall that you yourself acknowledged (seemingly with some reluctance) after perusing the relevant discussions on TOO and VNN Forum about Greggy’s essay, “[Not] Dealing with the Holocaust,” that it was Greggy who went ad hominem.
My experience has been that there is no such thing as productive discussion with Greggy. I make rational criticisms and get emotional responses. Greggy even banned me from posting comments on C-C after I pointed out that the death by electrocution of Topsy the elephant was not an expression of inhumanity on the part of Thomas Edison, but a most likely painless death for an animal that, by that point, was going to be killed one way or another. That’s cold hard facts and logic on my side, versus effeminate emotionalism on Greggy’s side. It was the same in the discussions over the Holohoax.
Toward you, my criticism, just based on reading what you wrote here, is that your rationale for saying that Greggy’s site does not promote homosexuality depends on a hairsplitting distinction that probably most people would not find credible. Most people I think would say that publishing writings friendly to homosexuality is the same as promoting homosexuality. It’s strictly the difficulty of your argument, based on this alleged distinction, that I am pointing out.
[While I don’t like the personal attacks] the topic of whether CC promotes homosexuality (or not) is something that is interesting.
Regarding Greg Johnson’s essay on ‘Debating the Holocaust’, I have to say that it got me riled up no end in its duplicity.
What is hard to come to grips with is what homosexuals do in their sex life. Trying to treat their sick activity on a debating level puts them in a ” being recognized ” category, which they love. Their activity is sicker than types of animal behaviour, and I must say I admire the patience of those on here who bother to debate with “suspects”.
It looks like Matt has given up on the conversation.
I guess he wasn’t up for defending his outrageous claim that not a single article ever published on C-C could possibly be said to promote homosexuality.
I don’t think he really wanted a conversation. He came here to point out how bad I was for saying what I do, then got trapped by others, like yourself, into having to answer questions about his positions. To his credit, he did finally answer them all but he is left compromised.
It seems to me that Matt wants to please everyone by not taking firm stands one way or the other. In this recent essay at http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/07/island-of-misfit-goys/, he argues we’re all misfits, thus should tolerate each other’s “vices.”
Matt is weak, is struggling with his weakness, joins with other weak people who ask that weakness be acceptable while they hypocritically pretend to be strong “Traditional” men. If a woman doesn’t like the weakness and points it out, it’s because she’s a horrible Feminist and disrupter who resents traditional values.
Well done all for exposing that vile nest of queers and anti-White freaks.
Clement,
She called me “hippy”, told me I’m a failure as a human being because I’m “hippy”, and began censoring my responses.
I attempted, as I’ve done before, to presume a degree of seriousness and maturity that simply isn’t here. I honestly answered questions and concerns in detail, which proved to be nothing more than disingenuous little riddles designed to ensnare me even deeper in your cesspit of rumor and innuendo.
Y’all enjoy this little cesspit …
The one sentence I deleted did not add anything to your response to the question. It was only a nasty slam at me.
Likewise, the last part of the last sentence I deleted this time was only a slam at Tanstaafl.
Maybe Clement or Hadding will want to continue a “serious and mature” conversation with you if you can refrain from your own insults.
Johnson and O’Meara are the ones who live in a cesspit of immorality, we’re merely pointing that out.
Asking you if a particular article does or does not promote homosexuality is hardly a “riddle”.
Matt said he was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome as a teenager in his Why I Write article. So, he basically is out of the running for having a normal relationship, and that’s a good thing for the gene pool.
I suspect Matt’s association with the Counter Currents crowd is purely a psychological issue about acceptance, self-esteem, belonging, always being in the unpopular group, etc. That’s why his arguments make no sense. He won’t feel comfortable with us so he will rationalize why the Counter Currents crowd is fine. There is no argument that will change him, it is too personal.
I don’t think there is any other White Nationalist, other than Matt, that would consider The White Network a cesspit, but Counter Currents a great place to promote Traditional Christianity. Reminds me of Republicans who ignore Whites, and instead focus on getting the colored vote…