Enjoyed the book and movie...fag or not...the only thing that bothered me was the family name of the female protagonist - Marla - her name was the very jewish name SINGER...he must have done it on purpose...why in God's name would he pick an obviously jewish name? To insulate himself from criticism? At any rate, it didn't work because some critics still called his story-line "fascist."

After reading the fourth Palahniuk book, I wondered why I hadn't stopped after the first.

They're all the same, with slightly differing plots - main character has some serious personal problems and the reader is invited to follow along as things go from bad to worse. Generally it's just Chuck trying to gross you out with some sickening trivia about anal beads and a plot twist here and there to keep you interested. It gets old rather quickly as a literary technique.

I went to a Guts reading of his a couple years back and the story is fairly disgusting. I think he gets off on the fact that he's spewing shit in peoples' faces and they eat it up.

His fans are your typical shit-for-brains tolerant liberal-types who think they're a lot smarter than they really are.

Palahniuk is like a Weimar Jew who makes a statue out of horse shit that the faux intelligentsia gather around and admire while criticizing those who point out how disgusting it is as uncultured. That he's a fag comes as little surprise...

What always surprises about the jew media "outing" people as gay is how they make it as creepy-rapey sounding as possible.
Like, "oops, we just found out you like it in the ass as much as we do, now your publically humiliated, haw haw haw!", as if the press dykes are giggling and taunting some boy at school for being weird.
The media is very heckle-y when speaking of fags, it sounds like school yard gay bashing! First they talk about how "normal" men sodomizing eachother is, then when some men announce them sodomize eachother, the media acts like "OMFG, I can't believe you fell for that! Hah, you have a dick in your ass and you like it, you little faggot! No going back now, we have it on tape!"

It is strange because the media is always talking about how straight-laced White men are persecuting gays and gay behavior, and yet the media shows such hostility and maliciousness towards them. Does anyone notice that too, or is it my imagination?

Lesbos, on the other hand, seem to get the "noble, brave muff-licker" treatment in the media, as if they are too sacrosanct to be mocked.

I can't believe I wasted my time posting on STormfront. Not being able to swear takes away have the meaning of these posts.

SMG, you are exactly right. All fags know homosexuality is humiliation. Hell, i heard some 13 year old girl trying to seduce her friend the other day, 13 year old lesbian predators all over the place, just imagine what these kids will be like when they're 16.

Fight Club is a pretty good flick but I never understood the imaginary friend thing. Can someone tell me "who is Tyler Durden"?

Haven't seen it in a while but is the guy in it basically nuts and hallucinating Tyler's presence to achieve his subconscious desires? Meaning, does he envision Tyler to reach his full warrior potential. Is there something I'm missing?

The reason kikes don't like the movie is that the main emphasis is organization. Kikes only like it when they themselves are organized at the expense of the Aryan race. That's why the movie causes a knee-jerk reaction and evokes descriptors such as "fascist." There's nothing fascist about it, it simply shows the power that exists through organization. Erasing the record of debt is a very anti-kike idea that would have bothered them as well. It is what we have been saying for years. The movie is probably a little too white for them as well. Also, giving Marla a kike name isn't exactly doing the kikes a favor, as she is portrayed as much less than functional.

I enjoyed the movie, and find it interesting to watch after 9/11. There are very, very few movies that I consider to be worthwhile these days. Probably 1-2 a year at most.

As far as faggots are concerned, I will have to say that I don't find them to be the problem that a lot of people here do. It is a problem that is its own negative feedback mechanism. I would prefer a pair of non-reproducing fags to a heterosexual kike/shitback couple that creates more of its own kind. It doesn't make sense to focus a second's time on the faggots when they are yet another symptom of the kike disease.

The reason kikes don't like the movie is that the main emphasis is organization. Kikes only like it when they themselves are organized at the expense of the Aryan race. That's why the movie causes a knee-jerk reaction and evokes descriptors such as "fascist." There's nothing fascist about it, it simply shows the power that exists through organization. Erasing the record of debt is a very anti-kike idea that would have bothered them as well. It is what we have been saying for years. The movie is probably a little too white for them as well. Also, giving Marla a kike name isn't exactly doing the kikes a favor, as she is portrayed as much less than functional.

I enjoyed the movie, and find it interesting to watch after 9/11. There are very, very few movies that I consider to be worthwhile these days. Probably 1-2 a year at most.

As far as faggots are concerned, I will have to say that I don't find them to be the problem that a lot of people here do. It is a problem that is its own negative feedback mechanism. I would prefer a pair of non-reproducing fags to a heterosexual kike/shitback couple that creates more of its own kind. It doesn't make sense to focus a second's time on the faggots when they are yet another symptom of the kike disease.

I agree. I consider homosexuality a mental disease. Also, it seems like the predatory type, especially pedophiles, are usually jewish.

I think hormone levels of the pregnant mother during critical developmental periods of gestation have always caused dykes and faggots to exist throughout human history, but I would wager that some contemporary externality is causing more of the "real" ones to come into existence. There is probably a substantial subset of faggotry that consists of "physically normal" people who have taken cues from the kikebox.

Palahniuk is like a Weimar Jew who makes a statue out of horse shit that the faux intelligentsia gather around and admire while criticizing those who point out how disgusting it is as uncultured. That he's a fag comes as little surprise...

Off-balance as this might sound, Palahniuk might make a fairly good model for an Angry Young Aryan Author if he wanted to do what H Millard tried to do and make it work.

I've read fiction by WNs and it's not much to brag about so far. I will grant that it's early in some ways, certainly in cultural ways, although damn late in other ways. I'm hardly carping that National Vanguard or some other outfit hasn't produced Nobel Prize caliber fiction yet.

But if I were to use Britain's Angry Young Men of the 1950s as an example, they'd be hopelessly antique. Palahniuk is another matter. He knows how to milk the rage and frustration of the male who knows the cards are stacked against him yet insists on hitting back anyway.

I liked Fight Club even though I saw the rage being sluiced into the wrong direction. There's several ways it could have gone in a very good direction, but Palahniuk's sexual choice might only be one of the reasons it didn't. Major publishing is really a closed club to white guys. You could hit the moon with a spitball easier than getting a book contract for a novel that accurately portrays white men in America right now.

The gates to what they used to call "Publisher's Row" have been barred to us for over a generation. Nobody is going to open them for us. When it's time for us to make our own, it'll be useful to remember how Palahniuk worked his audience.

Serious question. What do you think they lack? Be as detailed as possible please.

I've read fiction by WNs and it's not much to brag about so far.

The only novels I read are written by WNs. Granted, I use that term loosely and also include 19th century and early 20th century novelists who were almost all "white haters", considered by today's standards.

I find their quality much higher than that of the politically correct writers.

Haven't seen it in a while but is the guy in it basically nuts and hallucinating Tyler's presence to achieve his subconscious desires? Meaning, does he envision Tyler to reach his full warrior potential. Is there something I'm missing?

Yeah, that's sort of the idea I think. Throughout the book and movie you are thinking Tyler is actually someone else, but in the end the shocker is you find out the narrator actually has a split personality disorder and is dealing with himself.

He creates Tyler Durden because Tyler is everything he is not - Tyler doesn't care about Khakis or Sharper Image materialistic bullshit and is not feminized. Tyler takes on the persona of the extreme male... fucking anything without remorse, fighting, not caring about small things, and building bombs using an analytical mind.

Several quotes from the book/movie repeat these themes... "We are a generation of men raised by women," "You are not your fucking Khakis," etc. I think Fight Club did have a good message - that we're tied up in this bullshit society and we should try to escape.

I compared Palahniuk to a Weimar Jew because his books are literally ALL the same and I think they contain excessively disgusting crap in them which gets old after the first time. In Survivor it's a suicide cult escapee sex-maniac who goes on a weird adventure and in the end there's a shocking plot twist. In Invisible Monsters it's some girl without a face, and in the end there's a shocking plot twist. In Choke it's a guy who pretends to choke in restaurants and in the end there's a shocking plot twist.

All of his books contain scatological material and seem to be attempting to gross out the reader as a sick ploy. At first, this kind of stuff seems shocking... like Ginsberg writing about wanting to fuck his mom. After you've had the first round, it becomes what it is - nasty.

Well, if your looking for WN fiction that is good as a good mainstream book, I suggest Eric Thomson's "The Chosen One": http://www.faem.com/books/
You can read it there online.

Serious question. What do you think they lack? Be as detailed as possible please.

Same thing Norman Mailer said about Gore Vidal's stuff many many years ago. Mailer noted that Vidal's novels were structured brilliantly, writtten flawlessly and spectacularly researched. Then Mailer added that Vidal, after all that, could not make one character seem alive.

Like I say, it's early and the ability to do things like that comes with practice. Vidal got it down cold by the time he wrote Burr. I've read early novels by both William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway that could not be published now, especially Hemingway's The Torrents of Spring. Stuff like this would be considered practice now, something a writer might throw on a blog way before he considered shopping a novel to a publishing house.

I ghost wrote fiction part time for 3 years when I was young and dumb]Hold Back This Day was technically a very good piece of fiction. It also reinforced my perception that science fiction is probably a bad way to introduce WN ideas.

A dream WN novel (from my point of view: this is totally subjective here) would be something along the lines of a Jack Kerouac novel done in a contemporary setting with a white-aware viewpoint. Done right it would be a hell of a lot scarier than science fiction.

Question:

Why in god's name have you read four of his novels if you're disgusted by them so much?

Yeah, that's sort of the idea I think. Throughout the book and movie you are thinking Tyler is actually someone else, but in the end the shocker is you find out the narrator actually has a split personality disorder and is dealing with himself.

He creates Tyler Durden because Tyler is everything he is not - Tyler doesn't care about Khakis or Sharper Image materialistic bullshit and is not feminized. Tyler takes on the persona of the extreme male... fucking anything without remorse, fighting, not caring about small things, and building bombs using an analytical mind.

Several quotes from the book/movie repeat these themes... "We are a generation of men raised by women," "You are not your fucking Khakis," etc. I think Fight Club did have a good message - that we're tied up in this bullshit society and we should try to escape.

I compared Palahniuk to a Weimar Jew because his books are literally ALL the same and I think they contain excessively disgusting crap in them which gets old after the first time. In Survivor it's a suicide cult escapee sex-maniac who goes on a weird adventure and in the end there's a shocking plot twist. In Invisible Monsters it's some girl without a face, and in the end there's a shocking plot twist. In Choke it's a guy who pretends to choke in restaurants and in the end there's a shocking plot twist.

All of his books contain scatological material and seem to be attempting to gross out the reader as a sick ploy. At first, this kind of stuff seems shocking... like Ginsberg writing about wanting to fuck his mom. After you've had the first round, it becomes what it is - nasty.