Facebook Twitter Gplus RSS

Why this Archive

Published on April 28, 2014 by in Blog

“Let him work.” – Carolyn Yeager

Note: Several UPDATES have been attached at the end of this page:

This site is dedicated to what the White network was originally about, motivated by a desire and hope for the information here to continue serving and educating White people.

With the exception of this page and a few other minor changes, the contents of this site are a copy of the now defunct thewhitenetwork.com, as it stood on the evening of 15 April 2014, its last day of active operation. Old URLs can be “fixed” by changing http://thewhitenetwork.com/ to http://thewhitenetwork-archive.com/ – i.e., by simply inserting “-archive” before the “.com” Search engines will eventually figure out that the site has moved.

What happened?

In short, tWn started and operated for almost two years as a joint project, the product of a partnership between Carolyn Yeager and myself. I ended that project and partnership when it became clear to me that the mutual understanding and trust on which it was based had ended. The comments attached below flesh out how this happened, documenting why tWn is no longer accessible at it’s original location and why this archive exists instead.

On 15 April 2014 I posted My Mistake and The End to explain that I had changed my mind, decided to end my partnership with and support for Carolyn, and why I sought to use what control I had over the server to change tWn into a read-only archive. Within 24 hours Carolyn used her control over the hosting account to redirect the DNS for thewhitenetwork.com to carolynyeager.net, effectively taking the original site offline. That server and its files remained accessible via its old IP address for less than 24 more hours before it stopped responding.

During this time Carolyn posted Meltdown for Tanstaafl at her blog (I refer to this below as her melodrama-down) and left several comments on tWn – The End at my blog. Almost all of the comments quoted below were copied from one of these two pages.

Especially now in retrospect, the disagreement between Carolyn and myself is easy to explain. Carolyn thought tWn was literally all about her. I did not. She thought my support and participation was unconditional and irrevocable. I did not. I regarded the tWn About page as the basis for our partnership. It was my assumption that she agreed on this point. This is what motivated me to actively support her and her work in the first place. It was only when I saw her becoming increasingly hostile to this point that I lost any desire to continue working with and supporting her. Once this happened I made as swift and clean an end to our partnership as possible. The fruit of our project I have worked to preserve.

Carolyn’s response was also swift, but vindictive and dishonest as well. She quickly moved to delete the explanation I had made of our dispute and what I had done, even though to do so she had to take down the rest of tWn along with it. She then melodramatically mischaracterized our disagreement as a one-sided “meltdown” “out of left field”, and impugned my motives and actions as petty, paranoid, bullshit, beserk (sic), dishonest, devious, irresponsible, criminally unfair, and even treasonous. I’m confident that more hysterical accusations are yet to come.

One of Carolyn’s themes has been to make gossipy comments that I previously told her this or that in private, or won’t say this or that in public. Beside substantiating my doubts about her trustworthiness, these are arrogant attempts to speak for me, as if she knows my mind better than I do.

Another of Carolyn’s themes is, “Tan changed”. Indeed. My opinion about Carolyn changed. My trust in her evaporated. For her however this “Tan changed” idea plays into her assertions that she did nothing wrong, because it was Tan that is totally wrong, because he changed his opinion about Carolyn. This too is arrogant – ignoring or contradicting the reasons I’ve actually provided and instead annointing herself as the moral keystone I’m supposedly guilty of violating.

In an attempt to demonstrate how nasty I am, Carolyn unwittingly provided yet another good example of her own arrogance, trying to dictate how or where I could express my opinion:

[4/11/2014 6:56:45 PM] Carolyn Yeager: You know, Tan, I am not too happy about being grilled by you on my own program comments. It really seems you could speak to me privately before you go on the attack in public. … no answer …

This statement and more contradict Carolyn’s portrayal of our disagreement as a sudden one-sided overreaction by me, made solely in response to her White Nationalism, Eurasianism, and the future of Western Europe program on the 12th. In her melodrama-down she explicitly identified me as the sole source of the problem, which she claimed “came straight out of left field”. We see here though that on the 11th she was already identifying our disagreement as an “attack” and scolding me for it. As I pointed out in My Mistake, it was Carolyn’s trashing of White nationalism that precipitated our disagreement. This traces back to written comments she made at least as far as the 5th (see the comments of HTT – Episode 5). I think indications actually go back months earlier to more nebulous on-air statements expressing her distaste for White nationalism as a label, though I don’t recall which specific program(s).

Carolyn also complained about “White PC”, and she linked it to her trashing of White nationalism. She had directly named only one person as being guilty of this offense. Myself. After scolding me in private on the 11th she scolded me in public on the 12th, just before her program:

I think you are expressing the very political correctness at work in “Internet WN” that I have been complaining about lately.

At the time I considered making a further public response, but instead let it go unchallenged, in part because I had somewhere else to go and in part out of deference to the sensitivities of my former partner.

Later, in her melodrama-down, Carolyn pretended this exchange never happened and that I was “paranoid” to note the growing rift between us. She wrote:

Tan said “One of the White Nationalists she’s thinking about is me.” I had not thought about him whatsoever during the April 12 show, or ever unless I am talking specifically about him. How does he know what I’m thinking? He doesn’t, that’s the answer. But now I realize something: Tan feels his credibility as a WN is fragile because of his wife and kids. He suddenly got the idea that I was going to destroy what credibility he has … and on purpose! That has to be it. He says he doesn’t care what people think, nothing bothers him, but it’s not true. And right there is his paranoia: that I am purposely trying to hurt him. I don’t feel my credibility is fragile, that’s why I can speak the way I do.

Tan said we’ve talked about this before, so I knew that I would be upsetting him. We talked about this on Saturday evening, April 12 after I finished posting my Saturday show – the one he’s upset about. That’s the only time.

Plenty of things bother me. For example, being psychopathologized by someone who’s so blatantly either forgetting or lying about what happened. I’m bothered also by Carolyn’s arrogance, on display again here with her insisting that I don’t know what she’s thinking but she knows what I’m thinking.

One significant point about Carolyn’s program on the 12th is that she explicitly stated her intent to provoke an angry response. In one of her gossipy comments at my blog she made another unwitting admission. In this case it was that she had informed me what kind of response she was expecting:

I advised you in our hour skype conversation (rather grilling of Carolyn) to express your own feelings about it in your program.

It was when Carolyn got a different reaction than she expected, one she couldn’t just brush off like she had before, that she very suddenly exhibited a dramatic change in attitude. She developed amnesia about our prior exchanges, her trashing of White nationalism and her deliberate effort to provoke angry responses. She started playing the faultless and surprised little lamb, unfairly ambushed by big bad devious Tan. Her attempt to delete my argument and evidence to the contrary was just another volley in the game she says I was paranoid to suspect she was playing.

Though it only came to light after I had ended my partnership with her, Carolyn’s rationale for shutting down the original server and appropriating tWn’s funds strikes me as a most telling expression of her selfishness, sense of entitlement and previously latent hostility. I base this opinion especially on these statements she has made since I emancipated her from “White PC” (taken from both her blog and mine, ordered chronologically):

After he took the irresponsible and criminally unfair decision to shut me out of my own network, he now wants to make it appear that I am the bad one if I don’t continue to pay to keep it online as a memorial to his “work.” That really says it all about the devious Tanstaafl.

there is no way money to pay the server for years. And why should I be responsible for what YOU want, as you want it?

You say you “expected me to do such and such because that’s what the donations were for.” Well, I expected you to leave the site up and intact even if you didn’t want to stay there yourself. You actually promised me that, while I never told you I would pay to keep the site up after you closed me out of it and then proceeded to insult me … I had not insulted you.

The donations mostly came because of me and I’m the only one who talked about them and even asked for them and took care of the paypal account. You NEVER did since you didn’t pay for anything, but now you want to decide what they should go for. Why people don’t see through your incredible hypocrisy here I don’t know.

On the server, I knew Tan had the site backed up. So now he has some work to do to reconstruct it. Good. Let him work. And let him get himself a server … and a new domain name. There was no reason for me to continue providing for him. His paranoid conjectures that I closed the server in order to “delete the site forever” is wrong, since I understand back-ups. I don’t want to make it easy for Tan, as he has certainly made it difficult for me, in addition to playing so dirty against me. He makes himself out to be a hero here on his Blog, but any impartial observer who knew the facts would not agree.

FYI, it was I who took down the website. Since I was closed out of it, I was not going to do any favors and take care of keeping it up, with the possibility of it starting up again without me. I’m not a doormat.

I guess you could say Tan took the site down when he shut me out and declared there would be no more broadcasts, posts or comments. It became just a big archive of old stuff. Tan used his power because he could. But I had power too, so I used it – trransferring the domain name to my other server and then declaring I would not pay for TWN server anymore. He can bring most of the site back, but it won’t be the same.

I very deliberately did not take down the old tWn server out of concern to preserve the existing work and use the extant funds for the purpose they were originally solicited and provided. Carolyn’s misinterpretation of my motives as self-serving and devious is a window into her own mind. Despite her insinuations to the contrary, I considered the affect of my actions on others, including Paul Hickman. She did not.

Carolyn shut down the old server before she knew there was any viable backup. Wallowing in her own grievances, she openly gloated at the prospect that shutting down that server would harm me and diminish the existing body of work. This is no paranoid conjecture, it is a fair description of what she actually did.

Carolyn handled all tWn funds. This was part of our division of labor. I had no idea she resented the arrangement and see no cause for it. I could crow about the unique burdens I bore, some which were purely for her benefit, but it is irrelevant. Partners do different things to make a partnership work. What is relevant is that I trusted her with the money. Her mismanagement makes her look bad. My misplaced trust and misjudgment of her makes me look bad.

The most incredible hypocrisy I see is in Carolyn’s own bluster. She has in the past been inquisitive and even critical about the management of donations by people and organizations she had no direct involvement in. She can blame me for being whatever kind of scoundrel she wants – it doesn’t relieve her of her responsibility to properly manage and account for tWn’s funds.

Furthermore, it is dishonest for Carolyn to imply that tWn cost her money. From what I recall her telling me, tWn’s donors paid for everything. Their donations long ago covered her initial outlays and more than covered the ongoing expenses. When she declared, “I would not pay for TWN server anymore”, what she was declaring was that she would no longer transfer other people’s money from one tWn account to another and intended to use that money for non-tWn purposes instead. She had informed me that there were significant donations specifically earmarked for what she now dismissively refers to as my “work”. Hopefully she kept records. She should disclose whatever specifics she has.

I hope it is clear that I have tried to remain focused on the comments and disagreement between Carolyn and myself. Carolyn is much more keen to engage and complain about what other people have to say. I’ve tried to make it easy for anyone who is skeptical about the opinions and conclusions I’ve expressed here to go read or listen to the original words in their original context. I have provided copies below of what I consider the most relevant comments, just in case they should disappear from where they were originally posted.

From tWn – The End:

Tanstaafl said…

Peter, my decision had nothing to do with Frazier Glenn Miller.

It did have to do with respect. Self-respect and even more so, respect for the purpose which tWn was created and intended to serve. If a person says they can abide the 14 words, but really can’t, then it would be counter-productive to try and continue working with them.

4/15/2014 09:30:00 PM

Tanstaafl said…

Meltdown for Tanstaafl

I’m not interested in her he-said-she-said personal drama, so I will keep this response brief and to the point. It may also help answer Mary and katana’s concerns.

The bottom line is that I voluntarily entered into a partnership with Carolyn to pursue this. When it became clear to me that she could not abide that I decided to divorce myself from that partnership.

I have gone one step farther by taking with me what I had brought to the partnership – the recording/broadcasting/blogging system itself. I would not have done so if I had simply changed my mind about what was important to me and decided to do something else. I deprived her of the system I built because I saw a pattern of behavior that I couldn’t abide. She herself referred to it as “going off the reservation” and “questioning” “sacred cows”. She was complaining more and more bitterly about “rah rah” and “White PC”, and openly denigrating “White nationalism”. She was not simply going beyond or outside what we had agreed our partnership was about, but counter to it, against it.

If I’m wrong, and she really does love the White race, love White nationalism, and believe in the 14 words, then wherever she goes she’ll carry that with her and demonstrate it. I don’t believe she will, because I don’t think my assessment of the divide between us is wrong. At any rate, from this point on, everyone will know that if she does something, or complains she’s not allowed to do something, that it has nothing whatsoever to do with me.

4/16/2014 10:43:00 AM

Tanstaafl said…

Her programs, and mine, will remain available where they are for as long as Carolyn decides to pay the bills for the server. I don’t know the numbers but it is my understanding that the donations more than covered tWn expenses, so even with no new funds there should be enough to cover several months or even years.

I direct concerns on this point to her. Only she can say what she will do, or how long the funds will last. I hope I’m wrong but I fear she will pull the plug as soon as she can and direct the remaining funds into her other projects.

4/16/2014 12:02:00 PM

Tanstaafl said…

Well, there you have it. Carolyn is so proud of tWn and her work there that she has taken it down, or at least redirected the DNS for it.

The server is still there. The IP address is 108.175.9.251. To access the site (for the time being) you will have to edit your hosts file.

For those who object to the abruptness of what I did, or think it was due to some minor difference in attitude, here is your answer. I put tWn on permanent hold. She has taken it offline.

4/16/2014 12:16:00 PM

carolyn yeager said…

What bullshit all this is. I am anti-White; I don’t follow the 14 words. In what way is one to follow them? Do you? The “About” that you love so much says clearly, “Jews are not White.” Your wife and children are non-White. That’s why you were so content to stay in the background, but now suddenly you’ve decided to take charge.

I advised you in our hour skype conversation (rather grilling of Carolyn) to express your own feelings about it in your program. Instead you spent a half hour tearing me down in ways that were not at all accurate. While you were still fighting Arabs and embracing Jews, I had a website up in 2007 (of my own creation) with the domain name of White Women Only. Don’t preach to me about being White.

And it is true, plenty of White Nationalists are pricks. There’s no denying it.

Plus, there is no way money to pay the server for years. And why should I be responsible for what YOU want, as you want it?

4/16/2014 12:23:00 PM

Tanstaafl said…

Beside making the body of tWn’s content unavailable, what Carolyn has done makes it more difficult for others to see why it is unavailable.

I have copies of everything, but it will take me some time to make them available somehow. Her podcasts and posts are available elsewhere. Mine aren’t. I had expected her to honor the tWn donors and keep the site up. My mistake, again.

. . .

4/16/2014 12:58:00 PM

Tanstaafl said…

Carolyn’s response here is an example of what I faced any time I expressed any concern with what she was doing or how she was doing it. Strawmen. Insults. It’s all about what a bad person I am for disagreeing with her.

Whatever. That’s over now.

I expected her to keep tWn up because others find it valuable, and specifically because that’s what the donations were intended for. I have never expected her to do anything for me.

She is angry and lashing out at me personally because I am no longer going to be doing anything for her. She’s free now to say everything she always wanted to say about me but didn’t because she was afraid I would stop helping her. The worse she tries to make it sound the worse it reflects on her for working with me.

4/16/2014 01:23:00 PM

carolyn yeager said…

Tan says: Carolyn’s response here is an example of what I faced any time I expressed any concern with what she was doing or how she was doing it. Strawmen. Insults. It’s all about what a bad person I am for disagreeing with her.

An absolute lie. Your “concerns”, mostly from faggots trying to cover up for their friends or from someone like Rodney Martin, were always calmly answered by me. I’m at a disadvantage typing in this crummy little box provided by the crummy little FREE, no-questions-asked blogger.com.

I never insulted you and I never argued with you and I never called you names. You were the super-sensitive one about your “private life” and your “time available”, not me. You are right now being the prime example of playing the victim, not me.

You say you “expected me to do such and such because that’s what the donations were for.” Well, I expected you to leave the site up and intact even if you didn’t want to stay there yourself. You actually promised me that, while I never told you I would pay to keep the site up after you closed me out of it and then proceeded to insult me … I had not insulted you.

The donations mostly came because of me and I’m the only one who talked about them and even asked for them and took care of the paypal account. You NEVER did since you didn’t pay for anything, but now you want to decide what they should go for. Why people don’t see through your incredible hypocrisy here I don’t know. But I suppose some will eventually unless their brains are on hold. However, I do realize it’s a man thing. Most men are going to stand with other men, right or wrong.

As to Signifier, who said “CY lost sight of the purpose of the website.” And you know what the purpose of the website was, Sig? No, you don’t, only what Tan has now said it was. The real purpose of the website was to broadcast my programs. We together agreed to have a mission statement and stuff like that to look more professional, but the only thing Tan wanted to stress was some emphasis on American WN. Well, I kept that up better than he did, interviewing one WN after another, when I had hardly ever done so previously. So was Tan trying to force me into some new mold? No, because he never complained at all about my show topics. So these are all canards because it is Tanstaafl that has “changed” and lost sight of his purpose for the website. He said many times in public that his only desire was to enable me to do radio broadcasts. I was a little embarrassed by that. Then came ONE PROGRAM that struck him wrong on April 16, and he went beserk. Now you tell me who has the problem?

The crux of the matter is, I KNOW of the many conversations between us in over two years, and what they were like. But I’m more easy-going than Tan. I say what I think and don’t carry grudges, but it appears Tan has difficulty saying what he really thinks and does carry grudges. He feels he’s been suffering, oh woe.

I’m okay with what’s happened, now it’s so clear what I’m dealing with. But Tan wants to set it up so that if I’m not a passionate, devoted WN from here on in, it proves him right. Heads I win, tails you lose. Good luck to you all; I have my own pastures to graze in.

4/16/2014 02:47:00 PM

Tanstaafl said…

“The real purpose of the website was to broadcast my programs.”

Exactly. That’s what YOU thought it was about. Whereas I thought, and thought you agreed, it was about what we put in the tWn About page. This was my mistake.

“if I’m not a passionate, devoted WN from here on in, it proves him right”

All you have to do to prove me wrong is actually act as if you take what was in the tWn About page seriously. You can’t, which is why I want nothing further to do with you.

If my complaints are bullshit, why have you tried to hide what they are, even though you had to take everything else offline to do so?

4/16/2014 03:27:00 PM

Tanstaafl said…

A more mature response would have been to communicate to Carolyn about his serious issue with her criticism of a broad based ‘white nationalism’….(On her show, she even said that the Knights site was new to her and she was unsure of it

I did communicate with Carolyn. She brushed my concerns off. She thought tWn was all about whatever she wanted and that I had no real say. My response was to put tWn in read-only mode. This was not a careless or abrupt decision. Her WN-trashing goes back before Saturday. In that program she makes our conflict and her intent to provoke an angry reaction clear. She thought I would bite my tongue, or at worst, leave tWn to her. She miscalculated.

Her response was to reroute the DNS, making it difficult to get to. Now the server is no longer responding via its old IP, meaning it is likely gone for good. A more mature response would have been for her to use the donations to keep tWn running as an archive, because good work had been done, and others will miss it. But her programs are already archived elsewhere, and from her comment above it’s clear she feels justified using the remaining tWn donations for herself. It’s just another indication that she thought tWn was all about her.

I think I have the files necessary to provide a read-only mirror of tWn, but it will take me some time to set up. I’ll make sure it includes an explanation of Carolyn’s attempt to delete it forever.

4/17/2014 11:05:00 AM

carolyn yeagerc said…

There is serious mis-quoting going on in these comments, with no attempt by Tan to correct them even though he knows better. All these anonymous trolls, Tan! Really, where has your moderation gone? It was Tan who upbraided me in the skype conversation I reported on for “paying attention to what trolls are saying about you; why do you let them bother you?” Now here they are at AoT and Tan loves them. I’m glad my site has more dignity.

For example, it was not I who ever said “The White Network is all about me.” It was Tan who said he created it for me so I would continue doing programs; on several occasions he said it. One time was when he was on Kyle Hunt’s program. I was only pointing out what he has said, and he never said differently. Even the most ignorant and illiterate among you should be able to follow that. However, you’re all about twisting what’s been said, on purpose.

Another lie is that I brought up Tan’s family in some disparaging way. But it’s always been I who’s stood up against this criticism of Tan; Tan himself never has. What I said actually said was that Tan is going on about the “About” page like he is an Oliver Cromwell and it was Holy Scripture. So I pointed out the most important line in it, to him. It’s his mantra.

To Anonymous who said: “Yeah, the hundreds of hours spent on site setup and maintenance, as well as acting as audio engineer for every show had nothing to do with the donations.” FYI, Tan did not act as “audio engineer” for each show, he was not even around half the time. TWN was expressly designed so that wouldn’t be necessary. Plus, however many hours Tan spent, he wanted to do it, it was his choice to build it himself … these hours were matched by my hundreds, nay thousands of hours preparing for 5 hours of programs a week for two years. I also chose to do it, but there wouldn’t have been much there without me. Ignorant people like you, who probably never even listened to TWN shows, should not be loud-mouthing about what you know not.

Now to Tan’s description of our one hour skype conversation, in which I answered all his questions as patiently and as sincerely as I could. When he had nothing more to say, I told him I was quite willing to talk more if he wanted – I would be available all that night and all the next day (Sunday.) He said okay, but I never heard from him again. Now he characterizes it as: “She brushed my concerns off.” I’m sorry but I have a hard time taking his concerns about me seriously, and so do many people. I never got caught up with “concerns” about him.

Tan says a lot of things about people privately that he won’t say publicly, similar to Deanna Spingola and so many others. I brought that up. His answer was, as usual, that he doesn’t like to confront people, doesn’t want to stir up controversy. Okay. But I am willing to do that. We’re different.

On the server, I knew Tan had the site backed up. So now he has some work to do to reconstruct it. Good. Let him work. And let him get himself a server … and a new domain name. There was no reason for me to continue providing for him. His paranoid conjectures that I closed the server in order to “delete the site forever” is wrong, since I understand back-ups. I don’t want to make it easy for Tan, as he has certainly made it difficult for me, in addition to playing so dirty against me. He makes himself out to be a hero here on his Blog, but any impartial observer who knew the facts would not agree.

Please be aware that I don’t give you permission to include my programs, my program posts or my blog posts on your read-only site. I will send you a formal communication about this. Finally, I have to say that you, as a computer expert, should have done a better job of backing it up. I’m amazed at your negligence. You never expected this to happen? Well, I never expected what happened to me, either.

4/17/2014 07:19:00 PM

Tanstaafl said…

Every time you make one of these bitter, vindictive comments you demonstrate that my assessment of the situation was right.

“mis-quoting” “trolls” “my site has more dignity”

You don’t have dignity. You have an echo chamber. And this isn’t it.

“There was no reason for me to continue providing for him.”

Our partnership is over. You are free to provide for someone else now.

4/17/2014 08:45:00 PM

Tanstaafl said…

I’ve been travelling and incommunicado for the past week but would like to respond to this:

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2014/04/22/rodney-martin-on-kyle-hunt/comment-page-1/#comment-2610703

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2014/04/22/rodney-martin-on-kyle-hunt/comment-page-1/#comment-2610751

Carolyn’s claim that there was no disagreement between us is part of the disagreement between us. She thought tWn was all about her. I didn’t.

“Tan agreed with me 100% on Rodney” “Tan was OK on everything I had done on TWN”

Carolyn Yeager does not speak for me. Beyond that, she’s lying. She’s gone from brushing off the concerns I expressed in private to publicly pretending that I never expressed any concerns.

I regret ever trusting or associating with her.

4/26/2014 01:33:00 AM

Here is Carolyn’s melodrama-down, Meltdown for Tanstaafl, in it’s entirety:

Written on 4-15-14 by Carolyn Yeager

UNBELIEVABLE. I never expected something like this, which came straight out of left field for me. Tan made sure I would suspect nothing. He closed me out of The White Network admin pages minutes before his taped program began. I always thought Tan was an honest straight shooter, but he is not shooting straight presently. Something happened. And it happened since April 12, just 3 days ago!! But what is not altogether new to me is Tan’s paranoia, or extremely suspicious mind. I’ve experienced quite a bit of it from him, which I can go into if necessary.

One thing Tan said to me at least a year ago, if not longer ago, in all sincerity at the time, was that if he decided to leave tWn for some reason, or if something happened to him so that he could not continue, I could continue to do my shows because it was a self-perpetuating system. It would continue to operate automatically, basically. He designed it that way. I felt pretty good about that and certainly believed he would never have any evil intentions toward me.

Well, somebody has changed in this relationship based on mutual trust and it is not me. I am saying the same things I have always said, as pertains to the White race, White Nationalism, White anything. If anyone goes through my Heretics’ Hour programs going 4 years back, available at http://carolynyeager.net under “Radio Archives,” that will be obvious. Tan was listening to my programs all the time that I was at Voice of Reason and he loved and learned from all my mainly German-oriented topics. He said so to me and to the listeners on his own shows. Now he says Carolyn Yeager doesn’t like Whites, she only likes Germans.

Here are some FACTS:

I wrote the “About” page for The White Network that he went on and on about in his “final show.” Totally. Tan said it was perfect and had no editing to suggest.

[Ironically, she was forced to paste a copy of the contents of the About page here because she had made the original page it was on inaccessible. - Tan]

I suggested he add the 14 Words to our About page. Yes, true! Tan developed the website and put things where they are. I didn’t change anything, left it to him. But the Fourteen Words were not on the About page until I told him they should be. I even suggested they be on the front page, but he ignored that and put them on the About page. Sure, he agreed with it, but had forgotten to do so.

I came up with the name The White Network. Tan liked it and wanted to use it, but it was my idea completely. The domain name belongs to me.

I suggested he put “Whites talking to Whites about White Interests” on the banner under the name, which he did. But I believe he first came up with the phrase.

I put up the money for whatever was needed. He thought that was a fair exchange (no donations yet) for his time and skill spent in making it work. But another reason was because he doesn’t want his real name associated with anything to do with TWN – not even a post office box.

I skyped Tan at least two months ago, telling him I wanted to read Hitler’s Table Talk after we finished The International Jew and asked if he had any objection. I thought he might. But he answered back, “Not at all. I think it’s a great idea.” This month he himself selected the music of Richard Wagner for the special show he does – with not a word from me!! When he asked what music I was going to use for the Table Talk, he suggested: How about Wagner? So I did select a piece from Wagner that I like very much. In fact, up until that Saturday, April 12 show he’s so upset over, there was no trouble at all between us and I have the skype record to prove it. It came up suddenly, like a tornado destroying everything in its path.

Since we started Table Talk, NOT ONCE did Tan complain to me about anything to do with it. Not once! He was very friendly to Ray Goodwin, whom he knew nothing of, on our group show April 8, just one week prior to tonight.

What Tan says about me

Tan says I don’t like White people. But Tan has only talked ABOUT white issues. I have talked TO White people, White Nationalists of every kind. I deal with people and ideas … he only deals with ideas. Why? Because it’s Tan that doesn’t like dealing with people – White People! – he’s said so enough times. And everyone who’s hosted a show at TWN knows it and has felt it! Tan has never had a guest or taken a phone call.

Tan says I don’t like Slavs. He is suddenly upset about Slavs. Just recently he said to me that he thought Northern Europeans were the only truly White people, or maybe he said the best of the White people. I don’t want to misquote him. He thinks Greeks are not White. He prefers the Nordics. He has never stood up for Slavic people that I’ve ever heard, and I’ve talked to him a lot. So he’s only using this Slav thing to add to his attack on me. Many of the things he said were for this purpose. His recall of what I said about Eurasia was totally wrong. He said I “tie White Nationalism together with this Eurasian thing” and “she attributes [Eurasianism] to White Nationalism.” How so? He goes on, “Jobbik and Russian Nationalism are actually Eurasianism so that’s another reason that WN is bad.” ??? “But she just wants to find fault with WN so she’ll even throw in things that WN isn’t.” Really, when did I say all this? Tan is hearing what he wants to hear in order to make his case.

Tan said “One of the White Nationalists she’s thinking about is me.” I had not thought about him whatsoever during the April 12 show, or ever unless I am talking specifically about him. How does he know what I’m thinking? He doesn’t, that’s the answer. But now I realize something: Tan feels his credibility as a WN is fragile because of his wife and kids. He suddenly got the idea that I was going to destroy what credibility he has … and on purpose! That has to be it. He says he doesn’t care what people think, nothing bothers him, but it’s not true. And right there is his paranoia: that I am purposely trying to hurt him. I don’t feel my credibility is fragile, that’s why I can speak the way I do.

Tan said we’ve talked about this before, so I knew that I would be upsetting him. We talked about this on Saturday evening, April 12 after I finished posting my Saturday show – the one he’s upset about. That’s the only time. He took up at least an hour of my time accusing me of anti-White behavior and insisting he only wanted to understand why I was doing what I was doing – “trashing White people.” Previously, he had come on my comments section and attacked me there … then was offended that I didn’t like it. I sent this skype message to him on Friday at 5:57 pm:

[4/11/2014 5:57:26 PM] Carolyn Yeager: What I had in mind for Monday the 14th has fallen through. Would you like to come on with Kevin MacDonald? If so, what would you want the overall topic to be. If you say yes and give a topic, I’ll invite him [kmac]. …no answer …

[4/11/2014 6:56:45 PM] Carolyn Yeager: You know, Tan, I am not too happy about being grilled by you on my own program comments. It really seems you could speak to me privately before you go on the attack in public. … no answer …

[4/11/2014 7:02:37 PM] Carolyn Yeager: It always has connotations of being out of line as a woman. A woman can’t criticize men. But you let Franklin R. participate all these years [on your blog, I meant] without doing anything about it, and the first time I had an interaction with him, I outed him. Then you accuse me of committing some great sin of including him as a WN , as though being a Jew he can’t be that. We don’t know for a fact he is a Jew anyway. Why don’t you get some proof. … no answer ….

Next day …

[4/12/2014 3:21:33 PM] Tan Staafl: i dont understand why you let trolls get to you, or why you take the role theyre playing at face value, or why you turn that into a criticism of Whites or White men

[4/12/2014 3:24:34 PM] Tan Staafl: i dont think FR is a jew, i think its more complicated than that. even though he didnt identify himself as a WN you immediately directed your anger at him into yet another excuse to trash WN – im trying to understand what you’re criticizing, not attacking you

[4/12/2014 3:25:16 PM] Tan Staafl: i cant make monday

[4/12/2014 3:25:36 PM] Carolyn Yeager: Wrong, FR always presents himself as a WN and he did with me.

[4/12/2014 3:26:59 PM] Carolyn Yeager: He’s all over the Internet as a White Nationalist! Think about when you’d like to do something with KMac and the subject matter.

[4/12/2014 5:48:39 PM] Tan Staafl: got time to talk?

Tan was planning out his moves already. Supposedly giving me a chance to explain myself. I didn’t satisfy him, that is clear.

Tan says in his short blog that he thanks Hadding Scott and Ray Goodwin for their contribution to TWN, in that way putting himself in a position of having something to do with them. They are both friends of mine who I had as guests on previous programs, whom I invited to co-host a “Study Hour” of my own creation, something that Tan refused to participate in. He himself never brought a single person to TWN. He doesn’t like to be bothered with people, as I told you.

Finally, he puts the responsibility for the future availability of TWN archives solely onto ME, after he shut the whole place down!! … saying “what happens is Carolyn Yeager’s decision and responsibility.”

After he took the irresponsible and criminally unfair decision to shut me out of my own network, he now wants to make it appear that I am the bad one if I don’t continue to pay to keep it online as a memorial to his “work.” That really says it all about the devious Tanstaafl.

I could respond to more but I’ve done enough. Very sad day. I called it on Monday with the 4-14-14 numbers representing change, but didn’t know it would be so brutal. But there’s also a meaning of freedom involved in there too, and I do feel rather liberated today. I lived up to my end of the partnership in every way, but Tan’s behavior cannot be considered Aryan.

Carolyn attached the following comments to this melodrama-down.

carolyn Thu, 17/04/14

Hi katana

. . . I can assure you, I am not wrong and I did nothing wrong. It’s a farce to even consider it.

carolyn Fri, 18/04/14

Actually …

. . .

Let me note briefly here, so I won’t forget to discuss it later, that Tanstaafl shut down TWN at a time it was showing an Alexa global ranking at 200,000 even — the best it had ever been. We were headed toward the 100,000 level, which is fantastic. This was a fews days before his momentous decision on his Tuesday, April 15 program. Why would he do such a thing – stop the momentum of TWN (he didn’t know at that time that Paul Hickman had left) – for some purist idea he developed about not allowing any critical thinking about “White Nationalism?”

Carolyn has always been more concerned about popularity (and Alexa ratings) than me.

I spent most of the 12th, 13th and 14th digesting what Carolyn had said and done, considering what my response would be. It wasn’t until after she told me that Paul had already decided to leave (on the 14th) that I finally settled on doing what I did, which took most of the 15th for me to record and write up.

carolyn Fri, 18/04/14

Hi Steven

. . .

FYI, it was I who took down the website. Since I was closed out of it, I was not going to do any favors and take care of keeping it up, with the possibility of it starting up again without me. I’m not a doormat.

carolyn Fri, 18/04/14

A little more on this

Steve, I guess you could say Tan took the site down when he shut me out and declared there would be no more broadcasts, posts or comments. It became just a big archive of old stuff. Tan used his power because he could. But I had power too, so I used it – trransferring the domain name to my other server and then declaring I would not pay for TWN server anymore. He can bring most of the site back, but it won’t be the same.

carolyn Fri, 18/04/14

Bizarre and not

Bizarre and not understandable to me also, But little by little I am seeing a clearer picture. I know in time it will be explained.

carolyn Fri, 18/04/14

One more thing …

WWWM – it came right before our 2 year anniversary in May. We even had plans for it! Is this some attempt to inflict as much pain as possible?

carolyn Sat, 19/04/14

Thanks Alexander and Mary

. . .

Tan’s thinking is starting to come clear to me. I think it is very simple. Tan thought I was criticizing “White Nationalism” too much and obviously didn’t think that I would stop, and it could get worse (though this last part he didn’t say to me). When I said I didn’t even want to talk about White Nationalism anymore, he didn’t like that either. Since he considered the skype interface software he had made to be his own property, rather than shared property of both of us as partners, he felt justified in simply making it unavailable to me. Cold, calculated and not wanting me to have a clue as to what he was going to do.

The finality of the language he used on his program and in his short blog told me he would not accept any mediation or have any change of mind. He even cut off the personal skype connection between us at the same time, designating there was nothing to talk about.

Those who think he was bothered by my outspoken views are wrong. He agreed with most of them. It was this White Nationalism thing with him.

carolyn Sat, 19/04/14

Glenn Miller

“I cant help but think that all of this has something to do with the Glenn Miller thing, even if it is unconscious.”

Maybe.

. . . [Carolyn quotes and comments here on something somebody else wrote at some other site - Tan]

If they come after me, I’ll tell them Tanstaafl has said I am not a White Nationalist! Go ask him, he’ll vouch for me.

carolyn Mon, 21/04/14

Thanks Margaret

. . .

When someone needs to defend and spin their personal version of their motives for doing a dirty deed, honor goes out the window. We see it all the time.

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s spinning dirt most desperately of all?

carolyn Mon, 21/04/14

great observation

I had exactly the same thought a couple days ago. It’s like Tan is someone who is so sensitive to treason, he commits it himself! Thanks for this.

UPDATE 30 April 2014: Let the record show that Carolyn Yeager continues to try to utterly remove tWn from the internet.

From: Carolyn (warwo14@yahoo.com) This sender is in your contact list.

Sent: Tue 4/29/14 9:34 PM

To: ageoftreason@hotmail.com (ageoftreason@hotmail.com)

Tanstaafl,

As I said to you on April 17 on your Age of Treason blog site, you do not have my permission to reproduce my work on your fake “white network” archive site.

Please be aware that I don’t give you permission to include my programs, my program posts or my blog posts on your read-only site. I will send you a formal communication about this.
4/17/2014 07:19:00 PM

As the registered owner of thewhitenetwork.com domain, I, Carolyn Yeager, can tell you that you do not represent The White Network, nor do you have any of the property rights of The White Network pertaining to radio mp3′s or writings produced for The White Network.

Having ownership of your own mp3′s and writings, you are free to reproduce them on a website with a domain name different than “thewhitenetwork.com”. Others who have produced work at thewhitenetwork.com can give you permission to reproduce their own work. But I, Carolyn Yeager, do not give you that permission to use my intellectual property for your own purposes.

I request that you take down the site, remove all intellectual property produced by me, get a new domain name (perhaps Age of Treason Radio.com) and then put up your new site. If I don’t receive a reply to his email from you within the next 36 hours, I will send a complaint to 1and1.com.

Yours truly,

Carolyn Yeager

UPDATE 30 April 2014 #2: My response to Carolyn Yeager.

From: Tan Staafl (ageoftreason@hotmail.com)

Sent: Wed 4/30/14 11:43 PM

To: Carolyn Yeager (warwo14@yahoo.com)

Carolyn Yeager,

In a gesture of good will and in an effort to comply with the spirit of your request (via email 29 April 2014), on my site “thewhitenetwork-archive.com” I have redacted the contents of pages authored by you and have removed the MP3 files for programs you hosted (hereafter, “TWN-MP3s”). This action does not mean that I accept or agree with any of your ownership claims concerning the White network (hereafter, “tWn”).

You are hereby notified that tWn was a product of my software and, as such, is my work product. This includes all files, audio or otherwise, including but not limitted to TWN-MP3s and tWn logos. Furthermore, I reserve the right to restrict the use of all TWN-MP3s containing my likeness, specifically my voice. If you make further claims upon my time I will seek to restrict your use of TWN-MP3s and any other part of my work product, at “carolynyeager.net” or anywhere else.

You are the registered owner of the domain name “thewhitenetwork.com”, which has been paid for using donations to support tWn, my work product. You have no authority to dictate who does or does not “represent The White Network” or to determine “any of the property rights of The White Network”.

Though I do not require your permission to use my work product, the full context of your 4/17/2014 07:19:00 PM comment (at http://age-of-treason.blogspot.com/2014/04/twn-end.html) makes it clear that you gave your consent to my reconstructing tWn under a different domain name:

“On the server, I knew Tan had the site backed up. So now he has some work to do to reconstruct it. Good. Let him work. And let him get himself a server … and a new domain name. There was no reason for me to continue providing for him. His paranoid conjectures that I closed the server in order to “delete the site forever” is wrong, since I understand back-ups. I don’t want to make it easy for Tan, as he has certainly made it difficult for me, in addition to playing so dirty against me. He makes himself out to be a hero here on his Blog, but any impartial observer who knew the facts would not agree.”

Sincerely,

Tanstaafl

UPDATE 1 May 2014: Some posts in calendar-based archive pages with a mixture of authors were improperly redacted. This unintentional oversight has now been fixed.

UPDATE 20 May 2014: More demands from Carolyn.

From: Carolyn (warwo14@yahoo.com) This sender is in your contact list.

Sent: Mon 5/19/14 6:55 PM

To: ageoftreason@hotmail.com (ageoftreason@hotmail.com); warwo14@yahoo.com (warwo14@yahoo.com)

To Tanstaafl:

I noticed today that you have uploaded some of my The Heretics’ Hour radio programs to your new Age of Treason blogsite. Not only are my show mp3s available on your website, but the programs posts I wrote and the images I selected are there as well. According to The White Network policy you agreed to and which was posted on TWN front page for a long time, this content is my property.

Policy

The content presented at this web site thewhitenetwork.com is the sole property of the program host and/or writer and The White Network. All rights reserved.

Since The White Network is dissolved and belongs to no one, these programs belong solely to me, the program host. I demand you remove all my intellectual property from your website immediately.

Yours truly,

Carolyn Yeager

I will not heed or make any direct response to this egomaniac’s demands, but I will take the opportunity, since I’m here to update this record anyway, to add a few relevant notes.

I have not uploaded any Heretics’ Hour radio programs to Age of Treason. Carolyn is probably referring to links in a few older blog posts which originally pointed to thewhitenetwork.com, which she broke when she redirected the DNS for that domain to carolynyeager.net and then shut down the server. One of the benefits of moving my blog from Blogger to a new dedicated server was that it was easy for me to change all those broken thewhitenetwork.com links to point at thewhitenetwork-archive.com instead.

thewhitenetwork-archive.com doesn’t serve the radio program files she’s complaining about either – I fixed it to simply redirect all such links to the files on her own site. Here are the web server directives I use:


RedirectMatch ^/data/audio/tWn_The_Heretics_Hour_20130520.mp3 http://thewhitenetwork-archive.com/tWn_The_Heretics_Hour_20130520.mp3
RedirectMatch ^/data/audio/(tWn_The_Heretics_Hour_.*) http://carolynyeager.net/system/files/$1
RedirectMatch ^/data/audio/(tWn_Hitlers_Table_Talk_Study_Hour_.*) http://carolynyeager.net/system/files/$1
RedirectMatch ^/data/audio/(tWn_Saturday_Afternoon_with_Carolyn_Yeager_.*) http://carolynyeager.net/system/files/$1
RedirectMatch ^/data/audio/(tWn_The_International_Jew_Study_Hour_.*) http://carolynyeager.net/system/files/$1

The one exception (http://thewhitenetwork-archive.com/tWn_The_Heretics_Hour_20130520.mp3) is the file for a program that was hosted by Hadding Scott, who contacted me via email to request that I make it available, ironically because Carolyn does not host it on her own site.

As easy as it was for me to fix my broken links, it would be even easier for Carolyn Yeager to fix all the links she broke, everywhere on the internet at once. All she has to do is change the DNS for thewhitenetwork.com to point at thewhitenetwork-archive.com. But of course, the whole point of her breaking the links in the first place was to cause harm – to make it difficult for anyone to get to any of tWn’s content, including the portions which she had no hand in producing.

I reject Carolyn’s assertion that, “The White Network is dissolved and belongs to no one”, but note the contrast with the assertions she made in her previous email. Her increasingly lame rationale for making demands convinces me that I made the right decision to end our partnership. I have never disavowed my interest in the White network and have no intention to ever do so. I am gratified however that Carolyn continues to demonstrate that she was interested in tWn only to the extent she thought it served her personally. That is, after all, exactly why I ended the partnership.

Speaking of what belongs to who, I’ll call here once again for Carolyn to make a full accounting for the tWn funds she managed.

I’ve registered an account at Metapedia and explained why there. See also: The White Network, Talk:The_White_Network, and User_talk:Tanstaafl.

UPDATE 28 June 2014: I figured out how to alter the redaction code so that a post’s podcast player and download links (if present) will be visible. The MP3 links still redirect to carolynyeager.net, which serves all the data, but this way if someone ends up at a whitenetwork-archive.com page it will be less broken for them.

UPDATE 25 Aug 2015: I reject Carolyn Yeager’s “Offer”.

UPDATE 9 Sep 2015: More egomanaical whining from Carolyn:

It is a time-consuming labor, but worth the effort to me. I want those who wrote comments to my shows to have them visible where people will actually see them. I will begin next on The Heretics’ Hour, and end with The International Jew Study Hour. I’ll just point out here that I produced 278 radio shows totaling 463 hours for The White Network. That contrasts to Tanstaafl’s 97 radio shows totaling only 48.5 hours, meaning I did 10 times the program hours that he did! So what gave him the idea it belonged to him and he could shut it down?

Some of you might know that I tried to cooperate with Tanstaafl on making his TWN-archive complete, but he rudely refused my offer. Thereupon, I blocked his access to my audio programs and am in the process of making carolynyeager.net complete instead !

I’ll just point out here that she only has to do this comment-copying because she refused the offer I made, which was to freeze the site I had built and maintained but leave it online. Instead she chose to delete it, forever as far as she was concerned. Now she’s “stealing” from the archive she was hoping I couldn’t reconstruct and has since tried to delete. Anyone who only listens to her would never know this. They also wouldn’t know that in her rush to shut off the original server she deleted not only my reason for locking her out but all the programs that she had nothing at all to do with producing, which unlike “her” programs had no other home on the internet. Even now she places no value whatsoever on any of this other work.

I not only spent hours of my life writing the software she used to record “her” tWn programs, I was also physically present, monitoring the recording of almost every single hour she takes all the credit for producing. On several occasions there were software/connection problems and I spent more hours of my life skyping her and her guests and editing “her” audio files. She never helped me or anyone else in any comparable fashion, and of course she places no value on any of this work either.

Carolyn has always focused on quantity. My preference has always been for quality. She told me once that she liked to have guests because that made it much easier for her. At the time (and perhaps even still) I was her most frequent guest – 3 times at VoR and 13 on tWn – maybe 20-25 hours total. I never counted how many hours I put into my own program, on-air, but I take her word for it that it was only about twice what I spent being a guest on “her” program.

I understand that in her mind the entire network was all about her – but that’s just not the reality. In comparing raw on-air hours as she does she’s not only neglecting the hours I spent, but also takes ALL the credit for the hours every other host and guest and collaborator spent working on “her” content.

This is my experience with Carolyn Yeager. Maybe others will learn something from it. I know I did.

In taking deliberate action to block access to redirects from the archive site Carolyn has made it plain that the podcasts she has so long either stupidly or mendaciously insisted I’m “stealing” were merely links redirected to files on her own site, just as I explained long ago. I am not surprised that she provides no acknowledgement of her error.

Her purpose is vindictive. Her true desire is to interfere with the proper functioning of the archive site in whatever way she is able. It took extra effort for me to add the redirects only because she disapproved of this server hosting the mp3 files directly. Now it has taken her and some unfortunate minion extra effort to ensure the redirects don’t work. And now that she’s invalidated her own “copyright infringement” pretext I fully expect her to simply dream up another.

UPDATE 22 Jul 2016: Paul Hickman’s content has been redacted at his request.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
Comments Off  comments 

The End

Published on April 15, 2014 by in Blog

For the reasons described in My Mistake, I have decided, without consulting with or seeking Carolyn Yeager’s consent, that The White Network will no longer be used to record or broadcast any new programs. There will be no further posts or comments. I will not allow her to abuse the system I constructed to undermine the purpose for which it was constructed and for which she originally agreed to use it.

I expect Carolyn Yeager will continue publishing at carolynyeager.net. I will continue at Age of Treason. I have not decided what to do with AoTR. Carolyn informed me yesterday that Paul Hickman had already decided to move to Renegade Broadcasting. I wish him good luck. His decision has made my decision about tWn much easier. I thank Ray Goodwin and Hadding Scott for their contributions here.

Though I have always managed the server itself, Carolyn has always managed the donations and bills and thus has control over the hosting account and domain name. I would like this site to stand as an archive for as long as possible, so I request that she use whatever funds remain, or new funds come in, to continue paying the bills. Whether this actually happens is Carolyn Yeager’s decision and responsibility.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
Comments Off  comments 

My Mistake

Carolyn Yeager has used this platform, which I had provided for her, to attack and denigrate White nationalism and, by extension, Whites as a race:

White Nationalism, Eurasianism, and the future of Western Europe [The audio for this program can be download from http://carolynyeager.net/system/files/tWn_Saturday_Afternoon_with_Carolyn_Yeager_20140412.mp3 - Tan 30 April 2014]

The cause of this break and clues as to her motives, what she really cares about, can be found in the comments of these recent programs:

Germans, Slavs and Men of Action: Aug. 19 – Sept. 21, 1941 – Episode 5

Nature’s laws, N-S not a religion, source of raw materials: Sept. 22-25, 1941 – Episode 6

During her two hour program this past Saturday she demonstrated her ignorance, confusion and hostility toward not just White nationalism, but the very purpose of this web site. What is that purpose? Here’s a reminder for her and everyone else. the White network – About:

“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children.”

Our mission is to build group consciousness, solidarity and pride among White Americans. One way we do this is by educating our listeners in real history — the history of the amazing achievements of Whites as a race, but also our mistakes and the crimes committed against us. We encourage Whites to be more aware of and assertive about our interests as a group, to speak out and answer slurs and attacks directed against us and our White heroes.

We recognize that different races and ethnic groups cannot live together in peace on the same soil, that Whites cannot and should not tolerate being governed by non-Whites. As White Americans, we affirm our European heritage and common cause with our European cousins everywhere.

Jews are not White. They are obsessed with their own group’s best interests, not ours. Our network is and will always remain by, for, and about the best interests of Whites, and only Whites. We are uncompromising on this point. We do not hesitate to identify and criticize Jews and will not allow them to hide amongst us.

If she or anyone else wants to understand what White means, who we are, she can look to her own network instead of reciting the views of anti-Whites:

She wanted a crash course (with the emphasis on crash) in White racialism and White nationalism, and without looking very hard she found her own understanding reflected in anti-White and anti-White nationalist point of views she found elsewhere on the internet. She read those views so approvingly and uncritically that she didn’t even notice the glaring contradictions in what she was reading.

Even Wikipedia acknowledged the reality that White nationalists are exactly those people in America who have most consistently opposed non-White immigration and the jews, but according to some random site she found, Letter to White Nationalists, KKK Members, Other Morons Pissing Me Off, what White nationalism really means is White internationalism, opening the borders of Europe to immigration because White nationalists are actually just like the jews.

Carolyn seems to realize that this “European Knights” site she likes is full of nonsense, but she’s willing to overlook that because it trashes White nationalism, and she likes that. She agrees also when it says that it is good and right to recognize our connection with and be concerned about our European cousins everywhere, while also recognizing and respecting our distinctions and differences. That’s also what the tWn About page says, and is the spirit of White nationalism too. But it can’t be, or Carolyn can’t admit it, because she doesn’t like White nationalism/nationalists, and so she searched out and found somebody who says White nationalism is actually the antithesis of European nationalism because some gibberish about globalist zionist jews and anti-national socialist national socialism, or whatever.

Carolyn could have gone to Metapedia for a more sympathetic point of view of White nationalism. She should have realized (and even Wikipedia would have told her) that the Fourteen Words represent not only the essence and purpose of tWn, but the essence and purpose of White nationalism. We advocate the blood and soil nationalism that she says she shares, but in ignorance and confusion attacks instead.

The tWn About page is the root of her problem. This is the “White PC” she feels constraining her. Some part of her mind realizes this. At the same time, another part of her mind perceives it only as an obstacle, holding back her progress, a “sacred cow” which she questions without wanting or caring enough to acknowledge and confront directly. She knows this “sacred cow” is what she and I both agreed tWn would be about. But she now sees it interfering with her freedom to go in the direction she wants to go, to say whatever she wants to say about whoever or whatever she wants. So she wants to ignore tWn’s “sacred cow”, or to mold it to fit her agenda. I think she suspected I would be angry about that. She was right about that. I think she thought she could just push past my objections with a combination of bullshit and bluster. She was wrong about that.

She can say what she wants, as she always has. For almost two years I have helped her to do it. That was my mistake.

Pictured above are Carolyn Yeager’s experts on Whiteness and White nationalism: Leonard Zeskind, professional anti-White jew; European Knights Project, run by ?; John Tehranian, author of “Whitewashed: America’s Invisible Middle Eastern Minority”.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
Comments Off  comments 

What is Liberalism?

The word liberalism has been in common use in political discourse for more than two hundred years. Why is its meaning so ambiguous and changed so dramatically over time?

In short, it is due to a shift away from White/Aryan origins to a contemporary judaized meaning. The word itself is emblematic of the racial struggle for control of Europe.

liberal, at Online Etymology Dictionary:

liberal (adj.)

mid-14c., “generous,” also, late 14c., “selfless; noble, nobly born; abundant,” and, early 15c., in a bad sense “extravagant, unrestrained,” from Old French liberal “befitting free men, noble, generous, willing, zealous” (12c.), from Latin liberalis “noble, gracious, munificent, generous,” literally “of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free man,” from liber “free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious,” from PIE *leudh-ero- (source of Greek eleutheros “free”), probably originally “belonging to the people” (though the precise semantic development is obscure), and a suffixed form of the base *leudh- “people” (cognates: Old Church Slavonic ljudu, Lithuanian liaudis, Old English leod, German Leute “nation, people;” Old High German liut “person, people”) but literally “to mount up, to grow.”

With the meaning “free from restraint in speech or action,” liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning “free from prejudice, tolerant,” which emerged 1776-88.

The original meaning of liberal was noble, and thus synonymous with aryan.

Liberalism:

Originally based on two main principles: liberty (freedom from constraints on speech and thoughts) and equality (every human born possessing “natural rights”, ala John Locke).

Contemporary, judaized liberalism is actually the opposite – granting special preferences to “protected classes”, and defining special “hate crimes” for offenses against them.

Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings.

Liberalism thus developed in opposition to the long-standing socio-political status quo in Europe, overturning and destroying it. In retrospect it was not a natural expression of European nature, but represented a revolution, a turn toward jewish rule and the complete destruction of Europeans which looms today.

The notion that liberalism seeks equality is a fraud. The reality is that it elevates non-Whites above Whites – jews are the archetype, elevated first and highest, above everyone else.

With the rise of the Enlightenment, the word (liberal) acquired decisively more positive undertones, being defined as “free from narrow prejudice” in 1781 and “free from bigotry” in 1823.[13] In 1815, the first use of the word liberalism appeared in English.[14] By the middle of the 19th century, liberal started to be used as a politicised term for parties and movements all over the world.

The shift in meaning and spread of liberalism corresponds/correlates with the emancipation of jews. Tolerance and freedom from prejudice and bigotry enabled the jews to more easily infiltrate, manipulate and exploit White society. Here we see the beginnings of anti-”racism”.

During the twentieth century, liberal ideas spread even further, as liberal democracies found themselves on the winning side in both world wars. Liberalism also survived major ideological challenges from new opponents, such as fascism and communism.

The jews won those wars – securing and entrenching jewish power while disempowering Europeans. Communism was a jewish project, not an opponent of liberalism. They share major features, including central banking, internationalism, and an Orwellian drive for equality (metastasizing into anti-”racism” and ultimately anti-Whitism).

As such, the meaning of the word “liberalism” began to diverge in different parts of the world. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies.”

These contradictory meanings reflect a different emphasis on freedom versus equality (which are at odds).

What liberalism supposedly means:

Despite these variations, liberal thought does exhibit a few definite and fundamental conceptions. At its very root, liberalism is a philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society. Political philosopher John Gray identified the common strands in liberal thought as being individualist, egalitarian, meliorist, and universalist. The individualist element avers the ethical primacy of the human being against the pressures of social collectivism, the egalitarian element assigns the same moral worth and status to all individuals, the meliorist element asserts that successive generations can improve their sociopolitical arrangements, and the universalist element affirms the moral unity of the human species and marginalises local cultural differences.

This is the “philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society” which Whites are propagandized to believe.

Meliorism:

Meliorism is an idea in metaphysical thinking holding that progress is a real concept leading to an improvement of the world. It holds that humans can, through their interference with processes that would otherwise be natural, produce an outcome which is an improvement over the aforementioned natural one.

The real, jewish liberalism is completely different. It is not individualist; it is collectivist (group/bloc-oriented, identity politics, partisan politics). It is not egalitarian; non-Whites are collectively elevated above Whites, Whites are blamed for “racism”/privilege. It is not meliorist; dengeneracy is promoted and celebrated, Whites excelling or progressing is regarded as evidence of “racism”/privilege. It is not universalist; it sets everyone, including Whites, against Whites.

Liberalism, as a “philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society”, has become entangled with democracy.

Liberal democracy:

Liberal democracy is a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of liberalism, i.e. protecting the rights of minorities and, especially, the individual. It is characterised by fair, free, and competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all persons.

Porter, at The Kakistocracy, describes how it works in practice:

Liberalism is two jews and a black voting on which white to have for lunch;

Conservatism is a well-armed white enforcing the vote.

In 1961 the poet Robert Frost remarked:

A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
7 Comments  comments 

Richard Wagner

Published on April 4, 2014 by in Blog

This month’s special program was transcoded from The Best of Wagner. It will be broadcast each Wednesday and Friday starting at 9PM ET, streaming continuously until the next scheduled program.

The Mastersingers of Nuremberg, I: "Overture"
The Mastersingers of Nuremberg, Act III: "Prelude" ( 10:44 )
The Mastersingers of Nuremberg, Act III: "Dance of the Apprentices" ( 16:37 )
Lohengrin, WWV 75, I: "Prelude" ( 19:00 )
Lohengrin, III: "Prelude" ( 27:57 )
The Valkyrie, WWV 86B, III: "The Ride of the Valkyries" ( 30:21 )
The Valkyrie, III: "Magic Fire Music" ( 36:20 )
Parsifal, WWV 111: "Overture" ( 39:52 )
Parsifal, III: "Good Friday Spell" ( 42:02 )
Rienzi, the Last of the Tribunes, WWV 49, I: "Overture" ( 46:00 )
Tannhäuser, WWV 70, I: "Overture" ( 51:17 )
The Flying Dutchman, WWV 63, I: "Overture" ( 1:06:22 )
Tristan and Isolde, WWV 90, I: "Prelude" ( 1:16:53 )

Quite imperceptibly the “Creditor of Kings” has become the King of Creeds, and we really cannot take this monarch’s pleading for emancipation as otherwise than uncommonly naïve, seeing that it is much rather we who are shifted into the necessity of fighting for emancipation from the Jews. According to the present constitution of this world, the Jew in truth is already more than emancipate: he rules, and will rule, so long as Money remains the power before which all our doings and our dealings lose their force.

- Richard Wagner, Judaism in Music, 1850

Total runtime: 1:27:38

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
Comments Off  comments 

Political Fallacies

Concerning the dishonest nature of contemporary political discourse.

The Left-Right fallacy: Divide and conquer, political theater, the Orwellian racial meaning of equality and diversity.

The 50-50 fallacy: A deliberately calculated division, brain versus body.

Armor’s comment on Left and Right:

We know that leftism is encouraged by school and the media. But it doesn’t explain why, now and then, we find a real hard-core leftist in our own families, just like sometimes, some parents are surprised to find that their new born child is a redhead. So, maybe the leftist mindset is partly in the genes. But I think that only few people are real leftists. In the population, there isn’t a regular continuum from right to left with half the people on the right and half of them on the left. Rather, I think most people are conservatives, and a small minority is “leftist”, with a markedly different mindset. I think the real leftists are less than 10% of the population, but it is difficult to tell a natural-born leftist from someone who simply goes along with what the media preaches.

I don’t think that support for immigration can be in the genes of leftist people. There is no reason we cannot find leftists who want to defend the white lower class, and who strongly disagree with the race-replacement program. We need them on our side. A century ago, very few leftists would have agreed with our replacement with non-whites. But race replacement is now the main element in the Jewish political program, and the Jews are the backbone of the institutional left.

Even though the leftists are a minority, it seems that everything in our public political life proceeds from the left. In fact, it is the Jewish media that gets to define everyone else on the political spectrum. So, they classify anyone who stands against race-replacement as right-wing, far-right, nazi, racist, supremacist, evil.

My own opinion is that the right is simply made of normal people with the most common mindset. Opposition to immigration isn’t right-wing, it is a matter of common sense. Being called right-wing is like being called antisemite. It is like firemen being called anti-arsonist. Actually, the problem isn’t anti-arsonism.

I disagree with Bertonneau’s comment on one point: the problem doesn’t exactly come from the left. It comes from the Jewish-dominated FAR-LEFT. And in fact, the far-left doesn’t even belong to the left. The left is supposed to be kind, compassionate, and egalitarian, while the right is supposed to be pragmatic. But the “far-left” that controls the media isn’t compassionate. The Jews don’t care about equality. Their motivation is racial and anti-white.

Just like right-wing voters, most people who vote for the left are ordinary, non-politicized, non-ideological people. I don’t think that voting for the left is in their genes.

Yes. To the extent left/right is biological, it is at best a tendency, a preference. The jews and their racial animus drive the anti-White/pro-non-White agenda.

The “far” fallacy: far-right/racist/nazi is code for White, far-left is code for the jews.

French far-right triumphs in local polls that hammer ruling Socialists, 24 March 2014:

According to preliminary results from the interior ministry, the UMP and allies took 47 percent of the vote nationwide while the Socialist party and allies took 38 percent, and the FN five percent — far higher than its 0.9 percent result in the first round of 2008 municipal polls.

Applauding what she said was “an exceptional vintage for the FN”, Marine Le Pen — head of the anti-immigration, anti-EU party — said the polls marked the “end of the bipolarisation of the political scene”.

Although the FN had been expected to do well, the first round results were far better than expected.

What makes Front National “far-right”?

Le Pen took over the FN leadership in 2011 and set about broadening the appeal of a party regarded as taboo by many voters in light of her father’s repeated convictions for Holocaust denial and inciting racial hatred.

As well as trying to “detoxify” the FN’s image, she has attempted to make it less of a single-issue party by campaigning on unemployment, costs of living and crime.

The “single-issue” is what’s best for the French. This is regarded as toxic by jews and other non-French who are themselves toxic to the French.

The post-racial fallacy: Left vs right increasingly openly revealed as non-White vs White.

U.S. Whites More Solidly Republican in Recent Years, 24 March 2014.

The misleading headline is typical. The most striking feature of Gallup’s graph (attached above) is the stark and consistent racial divide.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
6 Comments  comments 

Left and Right

Concerning what everyone knows, or should know, about politics, the game of life, and the important role of lies and deception.

Left–right politics:

In France, where the terms originated, the Left has been called “the party of movement” and the Right “the party of order.”[1][2][3][4] The intermediate stance is called centrism and a person with such a position is a moderate.

The terms “left” and “right” appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president’s right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville explained, “We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp.” However the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties.

The left/right duality seems baked into the White psyche. It springs, I think, from an Old European instinct for egalitarianism and Aryan instinct for hierarchy.

Rather than a synthesis of these essential instincts, producing an orderly movement forward, Whites are instead polarized and divided by jewish influence, resulting in a disorderly shuffle toward oblivion.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
7 Comments  comments 

Game Over, Death Squads and Other Lies

More on Ann Coulter’s recent rhetoric about immigration, this time focusing specifically on her appearence at a CPAC-sponsored debate on 8 March which was structured as an homage to William F. Buckley’s Firing Line. (Buckley played a crucial role in drumming opponents of the jews out of conservativism.)

In the news this past week was confirmation and a reminder of what Coulter calls a “strange asymmetry”. College group’s diversity event canceled after excluding white people, Washington Times, 13 March 2014:

An event meant to celebrate diversity and combat racism at a Washington state community college has been cancelled after a flier emailed to guests said white people weren’t invited.

Diversity and Equity Center staffer Karama Blackhorn helped write the invitation and said she stands by her opinion that staff members of color would have a more honest discussion about race without white people there.

“When trying to explicitly talk about race it can be a really difficult conversation for a lot of people,” she told the station.

“That space is not for white people. That space is for people of color,” she said of the center.

As previously noted, the terms “diversity” and “racism” are opposites. “Diversity” is seen as something intrinsically good in “people of color”, which is just a euphemism for non-White. “Racism”, in contrast, is seen as something intrinsically evil in Whites.

The CPAC debate pitted the jew Mickey Kaus, playing the role of liberal/Democrat, opposite Coulter, who played the conservative/Republican. The audio clips in this podcast were taken from a 30:56 long video of the exchange.

@6:14 sets the tone and stakes out the overall theme:

Kaus: The Republican leadership still presses ahead for amnesty, including John Boehner in the House, and I don’t understand why. Democrats have a perfectly good reason to be for amnesty, which is craven ethnic pandering that’s gonna ensure our power for the next two generations.

Coulter: [forced laugh]

Kaus: But what’s the Republican excuse?

Coulter: [forced laugh]

Coulter has no answer. It’s the same pandering to jews in the leadership of both parties. They both must realize it, but won’t openly acknowledge it.

@11:32 Kaus again calls attention to Republicans leaders and their policies:

Kaus: “We’ll only fund healthcare to three times poverty, not four times poverty.”

Coulter: [forced laugh]

Kaus: None of that will do, will do good that will in any way compensates for the negative effect of amnesty on the wages of unskilled and poor Americans. So Paul Ryan says he’s gonna lift them up but he’s pushing them down with the other hand.

Coulter: Right.

Kaus: What is it with your party that’s fallen – the Republican voters don’t like it

Coulter: Right.

Kaus: Look what happened to Marco Rubio when he endorsed amnesty.

Coulter: All of them.

Kaus: He went down in the polls. Why does the Republican party persist in this suicidal rush?

Coulter: It’s baffling. It’s one of those questions like how high is up, why they keep doing this. I mean part of it is you do not hear the truth about immigration or amnesty any place in the media. You can hear I guess on some of the blogs. There is no issue of as much importance to America and Americans that is so hidden from public view as immigration. I mean you’re talking about who votes.

Not only is immigration not profitable to poor Americans, or even Americans on the whole, it’s bankrupting America.

Contrary to what Kaus implies, it’s not suicide, it’s genocide. Contrary to what Coulter claims, it’s not baffling. The media’s bias is a jewish bias.

It is the same jewish media which openly debated for months last winter whether Chuck Hagel would be the best US Secretary of Defense for Israelis.

It is the same jewish media that, last April, before they knew anything else, hoped the Boston bomber was a White Christian.

It is the same jewish media that, last May, was praised by Joe Biden for altering public opinion and promoting immigration, civil rights, feminism and gay marriage.

It is the same jewish media that, this February, flipped their lids and condemned Tom Perkins for having the audacity to equate the merely rich 1% to the jews.

The same jewish moguls who control this jewish media also have political influence. They fund both political parties.

@13:01 Coulter tries again, without success, to explain why:

Coulter: The country does become California. Why the Republicans are rushing headlong into this: Some of it is cowardice, they feel like we lost the last election, and “oh, please hispanics, will you vote for me, will you vote for me?” Well, you know, look at the polls, hispanics don’t care about amnesty.

As Mickey just said, who gets hurt by bringing in more low-wage workers? The million you brought in last year. And the year before. And the year before.

I mean my whole life I’ve heard Republicans hate black people. I’ve never seen any evidence of it until I read Marco Rubio’s amnesty bill. We are the party that has always stood up for African Americans. Who gets hurt the most by amnesty, by continuing these immigration policies? It is low-wage workers, it is hispanics, it is blacks.

And the fact that Republicans don’t understand that, can’t grasp it, you say Rubio was hurt by it, it wasn’t just Rubio – McCain, Bush, as you’ve written in your blog, it’s like a zombie amnesty. We can’t kill it. They keep going back to it.

And my assumption is it’s it’s it’s the lobbyists. And it may not be the congressmen or the senators themselves who want the job lobbying, but I think their staff does.

As a professional politcal pundit, Coulter knows that the Republican base is White – not low-wage workers, hispanics or blacks.

Her suggestion that senators and congressmen answer to their staff, who manipulate them in order to get jobs as lobbyists, is ridiculous.

We know that these senators and congressmen don’t answer to their voters on immigration. Their true constituency are the people who control whether they get elected, and whether they stay in office – the people who control the media and fund their parties and campaigns. In a word, jews.

Politicians who might feel some affinity for and loyalty to their White voters are afraid to openly express it. Even Coulter, an unelected pundit with a secure income from her books, purchased by Whites, won’t openly recognize White interests, much less express whatever affinity or loyalty she might feel.

@16:00 Kaus lays a trap:

Kaus: That’s the difference between the amnesty debate and the tax debate – is, taxes, we can always raise them later or lower them later if we don’t like it. Amnesty, there’s no do-overs, once you let people in , they’re here.

Coulter: Yeah. That’s why it’s more important that Obamacare.

Kaus’ point is true in the sense that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The poison is in the same old false claim that “liberal”/leftist policies, once implemented, cannot be reversed. “Can’t turn back the clock!”

Coulter too quickly and easily concedes, showing how and why “conservatives” always manage to lose.

@16:33 Coulter blames insanity, and Kaus once again reminds her of the racial reality:

Coulter: Harry Reid called the anchor baby law, or ruling, insanity. Of course it’s insanity! So yeah, there were some good Democrats but now I guess they just think, oh screw the country, screw low-wage workers, we want our 30 million voters.

Kaus: And it’s the triumph of ethnic politics over economic politics. As an old marxist…

Coulter: [forced laugh]

Kaus: I remember the time in the Sixties when the people came in and said, “No, it’s not the proletariat that counts, it’s the fact that we’re black or hispanic.” And we said, “You’re crazy, we’re marxists, all workers are the same, it doesn’t matter which color they are.”

Coulter: [forced laugh]

Kaus: But they’ve won. They’ve won. They’ve taken over the democratic party.

Coulter won’t confront WHO is screwing WHOM, much less WHY. She returns again and again to voting, even though she knows that what the voters want doesn’t really matter.

Though Kaus won’t mention the jews, he comes closer to the truth, to race, to anti-White animus. He shoves it in Coulter’s face, and all she can do is lamely laugh.

Kaus, like Mark Rudd, understands that “60s marxist” is essentially code for “jews”. Coulter probably does too.

@22:40 Prompted by the question “who’s your pick for 2016″, Coulter launches into a long, incoherent rant:

Coulter: But no, look, I mean Obama is trying to do everything he can. It’s not elected Republicans, it’s the American people who are stopping Republicans, I think that’s probably the best hope for our candidates.

Because again there’s no, to quote Mickey Kaus, I used to think everything was about sex, now I think everything is about immigration. It is, it determines every single other issue, and of course that’s how we’ve gotta pick our presidential nominee. And just you know a little footnote, that’s why Mitt Romney was my favorite candidate, he was the most aggressive on immigration. He was, and in a way that was very appealing.

I mean in that first debate he had one of the best answers, if I had two weeks to write an answer, and it was for illegal immigrants, do you want to give them drivers licenses and in-state tuition. Well half the Republicans on stage had already done that. And Mitt Romney said, “No, I will appeal to hispanics the way Republicans always have. We’re offering freedom, and liberty and a chance at a better life for you and your children. And any hispanics who are here for a handout aren’t voting for Republicans anyway.”

It was a beautiful and perfect answer. I mean they made fun of self-deportation, which I never really understood, except that I think liberals and the media have a capacity, they could turn the phrase “apple pie”, into “ooo, ooo, he said apple pie”, but of course that’s our solution to immigration.

Which is why you can’t believe these fake polls on, oh, most Americans support a path to legalization. That’s because, I look up every one of these polls and the question is always, do you want to, it’s always a binary question, two options: Do you want to round up illegal immigrants at gunpoint, put them on buses, send them home, ripping children from grandmothers?

Or, would you like to put them on a path to legalization where they have to learn English and take lessons in patriotism and pay back taxes of which there are none – they’d be getting money back under the earned income tax credit.

But look, there’s no politician in Washington who’s suggesting rounding anybody up. We didn’t round them up to get them here. We’re not gonna round them up to get em home. We just enforce E-Verify when the jobs dry up, and oh say, college tuition subsidized by the taxpayers.

And now as we know, please every conservative remember this, what Joe Wilson got in trouble for. And everyone was hysterical over Representative Joe Wilson at President Obama’s State of the Union address when he yelled out “you lie”, it was because Republicans had been fighting for two weeks with the Democrats to exclude illegal immigrants from getting Obamacare. And Obama stood up at the State of the Union, “Absolutely, no illegal immigrants will be able to get Obamacare”. And in a moment of passion and rage Joe Wilson yelled out, “You lie!”

Well we found out this week Joe Wilson was right, Obama was lying. He’s has now announced, he’s announced to illegal aliens, “Yes, please, sign up for Obamacare, this will not be used to deport you.”

This is Coulter in fast talk mode, like a snake oil salesman. She knows the Republican leadership is betraying its White voting base. She can’t really explain that, or why any White should still vote for them, but advises it anyway.

In outlining the strongest line Republicans have on immigration, Coulter makes plain just how weak it is. They have no substantial requirements – immigrants will speak English anyway, can’t be taught patriotism, and (as she herself recognizes) won’t be paying any back taxes. They want no forced deportation, only the self-deportation resulting from cutting off jobs and benefits.

It is similar to, but not even as robust as what Enoch Powell proposed in Britain 46 years ago.

Many came illegally, overcoming some resistance. Few will go home if not actively forced to do so.

Coulter’s point about polling biased in favor of amnesty is just a variation on the point she’s already made about the (jewish) media. “Round them up at gunpoint” is an allusion to the jewish holocaust narrative.

She correctly notes that politicians at the highest levels, including presidents, are lying about their intentions.

@30:05 Coulter concludes the debate with a severe case of cognitive dissonance:

Coulter: I mean obviously I’m disappointed in Republicans. The only thing that matters more is immigration. Immigration is forever, it is game over when that happens.

Oh, and by the way, every Republican voted against Obamacare. So there’s no trying to figure out is he going to vote against Obamacare. I mean some are better than others, I don’t really like hearing him say, “We’re gonna keep the good parts of Obamacare.” What is that?

But amnesty is forever. And I think you gotta vote for the Republicans one more time, and just make it clear that if you pass amnesty that’s it, it’s over, then we organize the death squads for the people who wrecked America.

It would be stupid to take Coulter’s radical rhetoric seriously. She doesn’t take it seriously herself. She advocates that Whites, who she won’t even address as Whites, vote for a party she knows has betrayed them, and will continue to do so. She won’t acknowledge the long-term, jewish nature of the project that has wrecked White America. Her “beautiful and perfect answer”, to offer freedom and a better life to any alien who wants it, is exactly how the wrecking was accomplished.

“Liberals”, in general, are relatively honest about the significance of race. “Conservatives” like Coulter, in contrast, deny it. Both favor non-Whites over Whites, because both march to a tune called by the jews.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
2 Comments  comments 

Ann Coulter’s Radical Rhetoric

Ann Coulter’s rhetoric about immigration has become increasingly radical since I quoted her in Morality and Identity:

While conservatives have been formulating carefully constructed arguments, liberals have been playing a long-term game to change the demographics of America to get an electorate more to their liking.

There’s a strange asymmetry in how this matter can be discussed. Liberals and ethnic activists boast about how America would be better if it were more Latino, but no one else is allowed to say, “We like the ethnic mix as it is.”

That would be racist. By now no one even tries to disagree.

Identity Politics is based on a very simple rule: White = “racism” = bad, non-White = “diversity” = good.

Latinos will pass whites as majority ethnicity in California in March, Daily Sundial (California State University at Northridge), 4 March 2014:

In Gov. Jerry Brown’s 2014-2015 budget summary, Latinos were projected to eclipse whites as the plurality, or largest racial/ethnic group, in the state by a margin of 39 percent to 38.8 percent, respectively, this month.

Melina Abdullah, Pan-African studies chair at CSULA, agrees the change is significant as it is a more realistic representation of global demographics.

“It’s more reflective of the global society we live in,” Abdullah said. “We have been conditioned to think the white majority is normal, but if we look globally, the majority is people of color.”

The usual “liberal” argument that is “majorities” must defer to and defend “minorities”. Whites have long been a minority globally. Now that we’re being reduced to minorities everywhere the true, anti-White nature of the usual line of argument is revealed.

“Every study has signaled the importance of ethnic studies,” Abdullah said. “The idea that we should have an ethnic studies requirement becomes even more urgent as we have an increasing number of people of color in the state.”

The less Whites, the more urgent and required the indoctrination in favor of less Whites becomes.

“It’s important that we live in a diverse world and you want to understand the racial dynamic, the gender dynamic and the politics of sexuality that are going on,” Masequesmay said. “It will make a more humane citizen of the world, instead of just protecting your own interests at the expense of others. You see how you are implicated in the system of social injustice.”

Abdullah agreed with Masequesmay and also believes the benefits are not limited to traditionally underrepresented ethnic groups.

“It’s true for the success of not only people of color, but also the success of white students who need to have, not only a tolerance for, but an understanding of, people of color,” Abdullah said.

Addressing the Individual Needs of the Latino Plurality

Ayala-Alcantar believes the ethnic studies debate, which was not supported by the CSULA Chicano studies program, illustrates the difference in opinion and background among members of the group.

“It highlights the point that we’re a very diverse group,” Ayala-Alcantar said. “Not all Latinos are in support of the ethnic studies or even know what it means to be a Chicano.”

Whites are “diverse” in a similar sense. But in spite of their “diversity”, non-Whites manage to think and organize as a non-White bloc.

About 65 percent of full-time faculty are white, compared to the 10.7 percent of full-time faculty that are Latino.

“It’s happening more in the K-12 system than higher education,” Ayala-Alcantar said. “If you look here are CSUN, the majority of professors are white males.”

While CSUN’s faculty profile does not accurately reflect the students it serves, Abdullah says the problem is reflected throughout the CSU system.

“People of color are really underrepresented,” Abdullah said. “On my campus alone, of the almost 600 tenured or tenure-track faculty members, there are only 17 black faculty. The numbers for latinos are about double, but still a huge underrepresentation when talking about 90 percent students of color.”

While Pardo understands the challenges the traditionally underserved face in the hiring process, she is still hopeful that talking about the issues can lead to some reform, especially on campus.

“We definitely have resistance, but it’s important to get the dialogue going and hopefully we’ll move forward with some changes,” Pardo said. “As we look at the demographic profile here at Northridge, which we know is 10 percent ‘Hispanic’ faculty, we’re a Hispanic-serving institution, so that’s something we definitely need to change.”

Did I Move?, Ann Coulter, 12 Feb 2014:

We’re living in a different country now, and I can’t recall moving! Had I wanted to live in Japan, I could have moved there. Had I had wanted to live in Mexico, Pakistan or Chechnya — I could have moved to those places, too.

(Although maybe not. They all have stricter immigration policies than we do.)

I’m sure they’re lovely, but I wanted to live in America. Now I can’t. At the current rate of immigration, it won’t exist anymore. The Democrats couldn’t win elections there, so they changed it.

Coulter’s statements at the Conservative Political Action Conference this past weekend sparked controversy.

I’ve Never Seen Evidence GOP Hates Black People Until I Read Rubio’s ‘Amnesty’ Bill:

“I mean my whole life I’ve heard Republicans hate black people, I’ve never seen any evidence of it until I read Marco Rubio’s amnesty bill. We are the party that has always stood up for African-Americans. Who gets hurt the most by amnesty, by continuing these immigration policies it is low-wage workers, it is hispanics, it is blacks.”

If Immigration Reform Passes, ‘Organize The Death Squads For The People Who Wrecked America’:

Coulter attacked MSNBC for “celebrating the browning of America.” “But if you don’t celebrate it you’re a racist,” she added. “It’s going to be people who are not from America who are going to be in theory funding older, white people who are getting to their Social Security and Medicare age. I don’t think that can last, at some point they’re going to say, ‘Screw it.’”

“I used to think everything was about sex, now I realize everything is about immigration,” she added later.

Coulter ended with this call to arms: “Amnesty is forever and you got to vote for the Republicans one more time and just make it clear; but if you pass amnesty, that’s it, it’s over and then we organize the death squads for the people who wrecked America.”

Why wait? The destruction has been going on for decades. Coulter seems to be trying to grapple with it, but remains determined to see it through a deracinated left/right, liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican lens. She has yet to acknowledge WHO is wrecking WHOM.

Whites who are as alarmed as Coulter is about immigration should educate themselves by reading Kevin MacDonald’s Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review. Coulter, as a friend Joe Sobran, probably already knows this, and where she’s heading.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
16 Comments  comments 

Enoch Powell – Rivers of Blood/The Great Betrayal

Published on March 5, 2014 by in Blog

This month’s special program is a reading of the momentous speech delivered by Enoch Powell at the Midland Hotel in Birmingham on 20 April 1968. It will be broadcast each Wednesday and Friday starting at 9PM ET, streaming continuously until the next scheduled program.

Though is has been described as “the most controversial speech in modern British history”, there is apparently no complete recording available on the internet. A BBC documentary (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), produced circa 2008, starts with a reporter, Reg Harcourt, describing how he was there with a camera team. The BBC documentary intersperses snippets of the black and white film of the speech with “anti-racist” spin attempting to explain that Powell was wrong.

Powell’s speech serves as a reminder and lesson to Whites: However bad you may believe the situation is, or may yet become, you are likely underestimating. Looking back, we find many sober expressions of fear and foreboding such as Powell’s. Always they are countered with the same fraud and trickery. What our enemies initially deride and dismiss as a stupid, crazy, or evil vision invariably metastasizes into an even more disgustingly degenerate reality, which they then celebrate.

Our program was transcoded from “Rivers of Blood” The Great Betrayal. Full speech., read and posted by Martin Willett. The description attached to the video reads:

Published on Oct 14, 2011

The 1968 speech given by Enoch Powell known as The Rivers of Blood speech. In full. No editing, cuts, omissions, spin, commentary, propaganda or tricky sound effects. Just the speech.

These are words written in 1968, and not by me. Don’t shoot the messenger, just listen to the message and judge for yourself.

The FULL TEXT of this speech can be found here:

http://right2think.org/index.php/politics-main/68-rivers-of-blood-speech

If you want to debate this matter in depth join my debate forum:

http://right2think.org/index.php/forum/

Total runtime: 20:09

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
7 Comments  comments 
© the White network