Jim Giles has done a new interview with Robert Campbell. Check it out. I’m told it touches upon the raging Arthur Kemp/BNP approach debate. As always, I will have commentary after I finish tuning in.
Comments are closed.
Copyright © 2024 | WordPress Theme by MH Themes
I never knew his name, if that is his real name. I recognize his voice from Bill White’s old broadcasts, and from his posts there and VNN.
I think he possesses all the traits needed to be a great leader, like Hunter Wallace.
His discussion of the old faith is also very interesting.
Giles needs to interview me about Arthur Kemp and the BNP.
I think he possesses all the traits needed to be a great leader, like Hunter Wallace.
I reserve the right to withhold judgment about that until I meet the legend in person.
Robert,
How did Giles interview you? Were you on a cell phone or a computer microphone?
Thanks to Jim Giles for having me on the show. I appreciate the opportunity.
Unfortunately, there was an extremely annoying sound problem that plagued the entire interview. Jim and I concluded that this was likely a skype problem.
I hope I was not overly harsh toward the BNP and Arthur Kemp, as that certainly wasn’t my intention. Giles seemed very interested in this issue and I tried to be as frank as possible without engendering ill will. I hope he interviews Hunter on the subject, as he is far more engaged in that discussion than I am.
A couple corrections:
1) Alex Kurtagic’s essay is entitled, “Memoirs of a dissident student in postmodern academia” and not, as I mistakenly said, “…postmodern America.”
2) Dr. Macdonald is an evolutionary psychologist, not a biologist.
I apologise for these and any other mistakes I may have made during the course of the broadcast. We discussed a far range of issues and I had a couple slips of the tongue, such as my complete inability to employ the word symbolical when I desired to do so. So much for summoning my Olympian solar clarity in times of need! 😉
C’est la vie…
HW,
Skype headset.
The Left has “cranks and lunatics.” Look at Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Van Jones or Ward Churchill. The Left lionizes its fringe; the Right pronounces anathema on its own. How are Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, or Rosa Luxemburg seen today?
Contrast Arthur Kemp on William Pierce to Barack Obama on Rev. Wright. The former presents Pierce as a destructive retrograde. The latter presents Wright as a misguided, but sincere and sympathetic figure.
I think the Leftist fringe is probably better for our movement than our fringe, as the extreme Left radicalizes conservatives more than we could. Such as Obama being elected.
So does the racialist fringe serve us better or the Left? I’m leaning towards the latter, but I’m open to Hunter’s argument.
The Left is always romanticizing and rehabilitating their extremists. They move steadily closer to their fringe. Obama distanced himself from Rev. Wright, Van Jones, and Bill Ayers, true, but he did not demonize them.
We will never see movies about William Pierce, George Lincoln Rockwell, and Robert Matthews like we do about Huey Long, Harvey Milk, and Malcolm X.
Hunter,
I concur. I think we need to keep “cranks” away from the levers of power in our organisations and so forth, but they are not a “cancer” that we need to somehow cure before we can get anywhere. Honestly, I find the notion absurd.
I pointed out to Jim that our enemies do not engage in public criticism of their own, and I tried to refrain from it.
So does the racialist fringe serve us better or the Left? I’m leaning towards the latter, but I’m open to Hunter’s argument.
Us, if we use them dialectically.
I pointed out to Jim that our enemies do not engage in public criticism of their own, and I tried to refrain from it.
If we consider the spectrum of FOX to CNN our enemies then they do, in fact, criticize their own. FOX harps on CNN and CNN harps on FOX.
We need to create our own “spectrum” and put them (FOX and CNN and their types) outside the bounds of our respectable discourse.
It is worth noting that we don’t see this debate on the Left. The costume scene includes the anarchists and the Neo-Nazis. There are far more of the former than the latter, but there is no pressing need on the Left to distance itself from the violent anarchist fringe.
danielj, I think that is dependent upon having power to advance that strategy. Until we have power I see it as being used against us, as they control the discourse.
Of couse if we ever did gain any power, I think there would be a civil war, because the Left/Jews won’t allow us to take control.
The debate over the costume clowns has more to do with middle class status anxiety than anything else. We see parallel concerns within the conservative movement with regard to racialists. On the Left, the anarchist costume clowns are simply ignored.
It is worth noting that we don’t see this debate on the Left. The costume scene includes the anarchists and the Neo-Nazis. There are far more of the former than the latter, but there is no pressing need on the Left to distance itself from the violent anarchist fringe.
True true. To you and Mark.
They have the moral high ground when it comes to the anarchists.
Hell, I’m sympathetic to a certain degree with the anarchists. They fight the Marxists all the time (Proudhon had some not nice stuff to say about the Jews) and they are more “sincere.” They constantly accuse their “brothers” on the left of hypocrisy.
I spent some time on the infoshop website. It is worth reading over and the news section is pretty informative.
On the Left, the anarchist costume clowns are simply ignored.
That is what I like about the idea of ignoring the Jewish question in general. Just point out the names and let people figure it out. There is enough Linder, Stormfront, Hufschimd, DBS, et al out there for people to spend their spare time reading through.
When I mention anything about the JQ to people I talk to, I certainly don’t send them to VNN, I send them to KMac.
Of couse if we ever did gain any power, I think there would be a civil war, because the Left/Jews won’t allow us to take control.
I spent some time in Berkeley/Oakland. I know people don’t like to hear this on the “professional” white nationalist site (and don’t misunderstand me, I am a professional to some extent) but I got in a lot of bar fights and I beat the shit out of a lot of dumb hippies. I didn’t even instigate most of them. I just said a few things that were anti-Zionist (Berkeley is riddled with Jews) back when I was a leftist/anarchist. I was committed though, and these kids were dilettantes. All this is to say, when it comes down to it, they won’t do shit. They are afraid to even get loud or throw punches and they were certainly never pull triggers.
When I mention anything about the JQ to people I talk to, I certainly don’t send them to VNN, I send them to KMac.
Thank goodness for that.
However, there are some interesting “conspiracy” type facts out there. I have a very reasonable internet friend who I’ve met up with several times in real life. An older gentlemen, respectable, well groomed and heeled. Me and him really only talk about the nuttiest Jew stuff out there. We go over Oswald Mosley’s connections to Jews and things like that. (Churchill, Eisenhower, et cetera) There is a place for this kind of “research” in private discussion.
Why hasn’t White Nationalism succeeded?
1.) As Robert noted, the British have a different political system. They can win seats just by achieving a fraction of the vote. In the U.S., it is winner take all. If we had the same set up, we would have far more seats in the Deep South than they do in the UK.
2.) The biggest obstacle in our way is the conservative movement. The vast majority of traditionalist Whites have bought into the argument that moderation is the way to go. Millions of Whites have their time and energy invested in the GOP and conservative politics.
3.) The persecution by the MSM and disciplinary orgs like the SPLC and ADL. As Robert noted, pro-Whites look at the destruction and imprisonment of David Duke and conclude they would rather not have their lives ruined by running for office on a racialist platform.
Also, King Phillip II of Spain, the movement of Jews from Spain to Holland and England after the sinking of the Spanish Armada. There is plenty of interesting and discussion worthy stuff out there that shouldn’t be aired in public.
All this is to say, when it comes down to it, they won’t do shit. They are afraid to even get loud or throw punches and they were certainly never pull triggers.
I don’t think anybody here would doubt their physical cowardice. But they have never relied on their own physical prowess anyway, apart from more recent times in Israel, and this has been under certain conditions such as fighting against backward Arabs, relying on US military aid, etc.
They have always used leverage, and indeed they are experts in employing it in any sphere they are enmeshed in, whether it be financial, political, etc.
The Bolsheviks didn’t need to be physically tough and skilled in combat to wipe out millions of Slavs. They used leverage and were able to manipulate others to do much of the physical grunt work.
Bernard: Very true. However, I mean that we should stand up now, while we can, in any social situation where the opportunity presents itself. Half the time pure volume and a couple of one liners wins debates more than logic and rationality.
I agree, if you can get them to laugh, especially women, you’ve won half the battle right there.
I agree, if you can get them to laugh, especially women, you’ve won half the battle right there.
and… Just the very existence of the “Roissysphere” and the game retards is proof positive that we have the upper hand. Well, at least I know I do when it comes to women and I believe that anybody here would as well. It just takes a bit of intelligence and personality and a quick smile. Women are simple – completely simple. There is nothing to them. Winning them over should be of primary importance since “No women = No kids” which is a much better slogan than “No Jews = Just Right.” You can have ‘no Jews’ and ‘no women’ and you’ll end up nowhere.
The biggest obstacle in our way is the conservative movement. The vast majority of traditionalist Whites have bought into the argument that moderation is the way to go.
…because all the conservative leaders have to do is point to the neo-nutzi fringe.
The debate over the costume clowns has more to do with middle class status anxiety than anything else. We see parallel concerns within the conservative movement with regard to racialists.
“Midde class status anxiety.” Yes, that’s it. Much of the mainstream conservative movement is middle class, no getting around it.
Conservatism is aspirational. I can picture the the budding country squires and nascent GOP congressional aides in their J.Press suits, good ole Southern boys who probably attended Episcopal and Washington & Lee, going to YAF and Federalist Society meetings, staying up until the wee hours pouting together their campus conservative paper with the faint hope of some day being invited (by William F. Buckle–Himself!) to write for The National Review. I know the type well.
These people, middle class Whites, for better or worse, just do not want to be associated with toothless lower-class types in nazi uniforms. The GOP attracts the middle class, the Dems the lower class (immigrants and non-whites) and upper class. (Where I live, I know many very wealthy upper class Whites who support radical left-wing politicians–it’s a weird phenomenon).
Until this changes (and as long as the economic crisis continues it very well might), I don’t see how recruiting White conservatives is served by remaining neutral on the fringe elements.
HW the “left” and the lefty anti-war movement constantly fight over the “anarchist fringe” and the “black blocks” and even the relatively mild Cindy Sheehan types.
Where are the young White filmmakers to make movies about the people you mentioned? It’s never been cheaper to make a movie.
danielj I (unfortunately) am somewhat familiar with the infoshop types and it seems to me that the biggest fight between the marxists and the anarchists is that the anarchists think the marxists oppress them by making them show up to the rally on time.
Really, some of this crowd are interesting writers, but as human beings they are less than worthless. Anarchists are really just losers. Believe me, most of them have never read Proudhon.
When I read “costume clown” I think of the traitors in power, in their suits and ties, pretending they’re the epitome of culture and civilization while doing their damnedest to steer both into oblivion.
WNC,
1.) See Craig Bodeker and Merlin Miller.
2.) I don’t see a parallel obsession with the anarchist fringe on the Left. I followed the Democratic primaries and the general election and don’t recall the subject being raised a single time.
The conservatives have their own fringe: the Birthers, 9/11 Truthers, Oath Keepers, Dispensationalists, militia/sovereignty nuts, etc. The Left has a fringe in the communists, socialists, and anarchists.
The Right goes out of its way to demonize its fringe. The Left tends to either ignore or romanticize its counterpart. There just isn’t a parallel obsession with the fringe on the other side of the ideological spectrum.
Returning to the theme of playing “practical politics” or changing the culture, it might be worth revisiting The Birth of a Nation and the Second Klan. After the Civil War, it was certainly “impractical” to be a Klansman in Indiana, Illinois, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Maine, but a single film changed that.
Anarchists are really just losers. Believe me, most of them have never read Proudhon.
True. Most people in general are half-hearted in their beliefs.
I believe this is part of the lack of appeal of white nationalism. There isn’t really a “moderate” branch of WN so the spectrum isn’t properly smooth enough to transition from one end to the other without serious commitment and the overcoming of massive cognitive dissonance.
On the KPFA (Pacifica Network Station in San Francisco) there is a heavyweight Marxist show on sometime in the mid-afternoon and he often times has the proprietor of the Infoshop website on for lengthy discussion about Proudhon and Marx and the differences in belief between Communist and Anarchists.
Even the head of Infoshop would probably concede that most of the “Anarchists” are just ‘costume freaks’ or ‘losers’ that want to throw molotov cocktails around and fight with the police. There are some serious anarchists however that are worth the time spent in conversation.
I think Proudhon and Marx (not to mention Marcuse, Adorno, R.E. Williams, etc) should all be essential reading for WN’s. Thinking about property and developing a ‘plank’ should be an important part of any political philosophy that claims to be in the interest of the people, or populist.
Great interview, in spite of the Skype gremlins.
I really lost it when Giles paused to yell at one of his dogs!
Hunter, I would really appreciate it if you would craft a short essay for TOQ Online about the proper attitude we should take vis-a-vis our fringe, including an explanation of how they allow us appear more reasonable, keep moving the political spectrum toward the right, etc.
Another use of the fringe is that they enlarge people’s sense of what is intellectually and politically possible. This is what VNN did in its glory days not in spite of its extremism, but precisely because of it.
I have really had enough of would-be respectables shitting on people to their right — people who are frequently their betters — apparently in search of good press from our enemies, rather than putting all their energy into attacking the real enemies. We need to teach would-be leaders that the only way they gain credit is by building real-world organizations, not by merely attacking the efforts of others.
Returning to the theme of playing “practical politics” or changing the culture,
I think the theme should be “practical politics” AND cultural change. I don’t see why this should be an “either/or” situation.
I have really had enough of would-be respectables shitting on people to their right — people who are frequently their betters — apparently in search of good press from our enemies, rather than putting all their energy into attacking the real enemies.
Putting on a costume doesn’t put you “to the right” of anybody.
Thanks, Greg.
I appreciate the kind remarks on this interview, particularly as I really thought I dropped the ball in several fundamental ways.
I look forward to your appearance with Sunic this evening.
I would take Dr. Johnson’s advice a little more seriously if I weren’t personally the victim of an avalanche of abuse by White Nationalists for counselling a moderate position on the J.Q.
Greg Johnson, danielj, Admiral: On the fringe, culture and politics.
On the political side, you have to be moderate and inclusive.
On the cultural side, you have to be extreme. It’s the cultural side that pushing the boundaries – if it works, the political side can ride the trend. If it goes too far, the political side ignores or denounces the trend.
Pastor Martin Luther Lindstedt isn’t going to be running for office or appearing on the news. Instead his extreme (ly hilarious) sermons push the boundaries and introduce new ideas and new avenues of attacks. That kind of thing only needs to hit 5% of the time.
HW, the left does denounce their anarchists and the like, but mostly to themselves, and simply ignores them in public.
The main difference that can never be ignored is that the corporate media is in the hands of the enemies. Any strategy, cultural or political, has to keep that in mind.
I’m going to clean up the comment threads from now on.
Re: the costume scene.
Five years ago, I was making the same argument that Kemp is making now. I’m sure friedrich remembers the episode. We passionately disagreed at the time.
When I look at the costume scene, my initial gut reaction is that these people are kooky or delusional. They’re not like me. We don’t come from the same background. I feel uneasy at being associated with them. It is not unlike my reaction to whiggers.
Upon reflection, I realized that it was a class thing. I was making more hay out of the issue than there really was to it. I was allowing my biases and annoyance with online Neo-Nazis to cloud my judgment. Their presence in my online circle caused them to loom larger in my thoughts than their numbers and activities warranted.
Mr. Braun, I am sorry that you have been abused for your views on the JQ. I think you are mistaken, and I have criticized you myself. But criticism is one thing, abuse quite another.
We are all feeling our way in the dark here, but let me suggest some rules of thumb for criticism in movement circles.
First of all, we have to ask ourselves why are we criticizing one another. Is it for personal reasons, or for the greater good of the race? If it is for the former, then we have to cut it out. If it is for the latter, then we have to ask ourselves what kind of criticism does this.
I think we should always prefer constructive criticism over purely destructive criticism.
We should prefer the tacit criticism of superior deeds to the explicit criticism of mere words. Meaning: if you think you can do X better, then just do it. If you actually do it, you will attract the attention and support of discerning people, and you will have actually made something, rather than just spent your energy destroying somebody else’s work.
We should stick to the criticism of ideas and actions and not focus on personalities. Nobody is perfect, but it is possible to build effective political movements from imperfect people.
Unfortunately, our movement is filled with people with destructive personality disorders. These people often have considerable talents that can be employed against our enemies. But if you allow yourself to be drawn into disputes with them, they will turn their guns on you, often to mutual destruction. If you avoid these disputes, they and you will be able to spend the time fighting our enemies. Thus it is worth taking some personal hits from the occasional asshole to avoid such destructive disputes.
This is often very hard. It is certainly hard for me. I don’t suffer fools easily. My instinct is war to the knife over any insult. I am never too busy to hate. But I try to take the long view. In one hundred years, I will be dead and so will all my enemies. All that really matters then is whether or not there will be white people in the world after our petty disputes and checkered lives have been swallowed by oblivion.
We also have to ask ourselves if we think that the aim of criticism of other positions is that we believe that there is one right way, that we know it, and that we have to take out all the alternative views by criticizing them.
This strikes me as a very naive idea, and counter-productive, for three reasons. (1) We don’t know the one right way, so we need to try as many different ways as possible in the hope of hitting on it. (2) Even if we had the one right way, it would be necessary for it to take on many guises to appeal to different constituencies. (3) To bring people into thinking the one right way, we would also have to provide them with a path from where they are now to where we are. This path would have to traverse all shades along the spectrum from moderation to radicality, to give people the rungs to move from one to the other. In short, if we did not already have it, we would have to invent something like the present movement.
So instead of bemoaning the plurality of different positions within the movement, we need to think of how we can make use of them. Radicals and moderates need not be at one another’s throats. They can work symbiotically. Radicals need moderates as stepping stones from the mainstream to their position. Moderates need radicals to make them seem . . . moderate. Both groups, moreover, need to criticize each other. Moderate criticism of radicals makes the moderates seem moderate. Radical criticism of moderates helps some people move over to radicalism. As long as both parties keep the criticism substantive rather than personal, it benefits all of them.
As a professional courtesy, though, moderates should refrain from attacking more radical elements in the terms set by the SPLC and the ADL merely to curry favor with our enemies. No behavior is better calculated to make people suspect an establishment front or agent provocateur. Radicals should return the favor by keeping the criticism substantive rather than personal.
Personal networks need to be created to facilitate back channel communications up and down the spectrum, which will allow a multiplicity of different independent individuals and groups some modicum of non-hierarchical communication and coordination, to manage rivalries and criticisms within the movement and prevent them from spinning out of control into destructive feuds.
Re: Language.
The word “fringe” means adorment. Oft-times un-necessary adorment. Extraneous. Non-essential.
The “fringe” really arent the fringe, when it comes to Racialism. The Fringe are the Outeliers. The Advance Guard. The Boots on the Ground. The ones willing to lay it on the line, n matter what. The John the Baptists. The Marines.
No – they are not always pleasant and well-mannered. Some of them do have rather…errr….”special” personality quirks, shall we say.
Hunter Wallace – almost everything Dr. William Pierce said, in terms of the progressive destruction of White USa, and the West, in general, has been right on the money. Oh – we don’t have a “Cohen Act” in name – but consider the “Hate Crimes” legislation. We have de facto Cohen Acts, in place. We may not have White Nationalists staging direct attacks, at this point in time, however…..we are in the death throes of White political and social institutions, as non-Whites remake them – and only God (Odin, for you, Robert) knows how events will play out.
You’ve cited the Oathkeepers are the Right “fringe”. Well – they are not fringe in as much as they are new. They are a new an emerging element. But think aobut them. They are military, law enforcement, and security that are creating their own oths, to uphold and defned the Constitution, not Talmudic Rule. They swear not to round up and fire on American Citizens, among other things.
Why would “in-house” military personnel, law enforcement, and security DO this, if there was not a need FOR them to do this?
Finally- I am beginning to explore the Mysteries of Revisionism – which I term “accurate history”. The shocking thing is the way in which the facts dissolve the lies. Forensic evidence is a solvent to Talmudic grime. I am well aware of the land mines of “Holoco$t denial” – but Judaic tyranny is BUILT on Judaic fraud.
Telling the truth is akin to exposing disease of the healing light of the Sun. The brilliant White Sun.
Please forgive my plethora of mis-spellings. I have the flu. I must spell-check before I post.
Admiral – if the traitorous “mainstream Conservatives” point to the “Neo-Nutzi fring” – the we needot challenge THEM.
The FACTS are with the Neo-Nutzis. When we run away from this – we allow Jews to continue to control the debate. To control and limit US.
I AM involved with the Tea Parties. A gen-yoo-ine bon-afidee WHITE Movement. Oh yes it is. They don’t know it. Or won’t admit it – but that what it is. MY group has almost a thousand members, in NINE MONTHS. Huh? What? Now – how would any WN organization LOVE to get that many member,s that wuickly? We all should be slavering over the numbers. My group is affiliated with many other emerging groups. So – I put our actual pan-membership at around 2500. In NINE months. Most are racially oblivious – I cannot stress this fact enough – but not all are racially oblivious. I root out those that let slip any racial comments – and go to WORK.
James Edwards is right. They were co-opted immediately. So what? It’s our job to co-opt them BACK.
I have to go back to bed now – my energy has evaporated – but we must find ways to bring the duped Conservatives to US.
I’m not really sure if “Interview: Robert Campbell II | Occidental Dissent” really issues the true meaning of what is being conveyed here but if at first you don’t succeed, try again right? That’s what I thought and so I went ahead and gave this new marketing tool a try and loved it. This auto PDF submitter has three modes of operation, depending on whether you have your own content you want to work with, or if you want it to find quality content for you. Automatically Fetch and Post Article. In this mode, the software will obtain an article from the web. Once that is done, the software will then convert the article to PDF format and submit it to the supported websites. Fast, easy, done. If you want to get in on the latest marketing craze then you should consider adding document sharing. Here is a deal if you want to check it out. http://tinyurl.com/7j8dvkv