Steele distances himself from White racists.

I read his article, and did not get the impression that Mr. Steele was trying to distance himself for white racists. Nazis, yes. White racists, no.

Steele: Remember that it was Rachel Corrie, peace activist, who was run down and brutally murdered by an Israeli tank on Palestinian soil where she stood up for the right of Palestinians simply to exist.

It was an Israeli bulldozer, Mr. Steele. As a writer, you should strive for fastidious accuracy.

I read his article, and did not get the impression that Mr. Steele was trying to distance himself from white racists. Nazis, yes. White racists, no.

I kind of accept your amendment, Professor. But I'm going to propose an amendment to your amendment. Both Steele and now you are creating a bifurcation where there is none. There are NOT Nazis and White racists as two separate and separable entities. Nazis ARE White racists. What there is is a continuum of White awareness. On the more militant end are the Nazis and Skinheads (the young iron fist of our movement), on the other end are -- I'm not sure what to call them -- let's say, racially awakened White main-streamers. The racially awakened White main-streamers understand that a genocide is being perpetrated against the White Race, how and by whom. But they won't quite say it out loud -- often for legitimate reasons, but also often out of mere cowardice. They do not want to accept the penalties attached to being publicly labelled a "racist" and so say things or don't say things to avoid such a labelling. Since it's important for our movement to have supportive insiders in the jew-system, this is not necessarily a bad thing and is, indeed, often a plus for our cause.

Regarding Edgar Steele, I'll try, spurred by you, to refine my generalization. Edgar Steele's public persona, at least, is far nearer the White main-streamer end of the continuum -- sans the cowardice -- than the openly militant end. He is a courageous man. But he is not an openly militant White racist -- and he is publicly, and perhaps privately, farther from being one than I had previously thought.

Nazis ARE White racists.

True, but the reverse is often not. Nazis and white racists are not one and the same thing. Many Ku Klux Klanners, for instance, despise Nazis. And yet, they're as racist, if not more so, than your average American Nazi. There are many other examples as well, but suffice to say that Edgar Steele is clearly drawing a line in the sand between his white racist views and the views of white racist American Nazis. He wants no part of the latter, it would appear.

True, but the reverse is often not. Nazis and white racists are not one and the same thing. Many Ku Klux Klanners, for instance, despise Nazis. And yet, they're as racist, if not more so, than your average American Nazi. There are many other examples as well, but suffice to say that Edgar Steele is clearly drawing a line in the sand between his white racist views and the views of white racist American Nazis. He wants no part of the latter, it would appear.

Well, I said a continuum. In any case, ES went farther than drawing a line in the sand between himself and Nazis, ES ridiculed Nazis and Hitler and even sided with the jews' characterization of Hitler and the Nazis and National Socialism (which the jews define as "fascism"). This is going too far into enemy territory.

I don't want to start this whole debate all over again. But apparently distinctions and refinements are somewhat in order.

Regarding Edgar Steele, I'll try, spurred by you, to refine my generalization. Edgar Steele's public persona, at least, is far nearer the White main-streamer end of the continuum -- sans the cowardice -- than the openly militant end. He is a courageous man. But he is not an openly militant White racist -- and he is publicly, and perhaps privately, farther from being one than I had previously thought.

This is the main reason the Jewish conformist matrix we live in is winning this war: there must be unity in our ranks. Instead of criticising others, we should instead be considering WNs with different views and outlooks as forming different factions of the same movement. In Australia, the Labor Party had a disastrous split that almost wiped it out so they created factions to allows people to hold their views while maintaining overall unity (left wing, right wing centre etc).

This argument applies to ES as much as it does to you Devere. Instead of attacking or "distancing himself" from Nazis or whatever he said (I haven't actually read his article) he should be maintaining unity, which can still entail reasonable criticism or debate about tactics. Likewise, your criticism of him and use of such potential insults might go too far and will just get his back up ("cowardice"?).

I can understand why people have concerns about those who openly support Hitler and use the swastika etc. But on the other hand, they are still our allies and are fighting the same battle. As you say, there are more "militant", "hard core" WNs - but that's good and they are needed. Likewise, there are the "intellectuals" who won't march down the street in a brownshirt with swastika armbands (and may be turned off by that).

Unity people! That's the only way to win! Remember: there are different factions with different policies, views and tactics, but its the one movement!

This is the main reason the Jewish conformist matrix we live in is winning this war: there must be unity in our ranks. Instead of criticising others, we should instead be considering WNs with different views and outlooks as forming different factions of the same movement. In Australia, the Labor Party had a disastrous split that almost wiped it out so they created factions to allows people to hold their views while maintaining overall unity (left wing, right wing centre etc).

This argument applies to ES as much as it does to you Devere. Instead of attacking or "distancing himself" from Nazis or whatever he said (I haven't actually read his article) he should be maintaining unity, which can still entail reasonable criticism or debate about tactics. Likewise, your criticism of him and use of such potential insults might go too far and will just get his back up ("cowardice"?).

I can understand why people have concerns about those who openly support Hitler and use the swastika etc. But on the other hand, they are still our allies and are fighting the same battle. As you say, there are more "militant", "hard core" WNs - but that's good and they are needed. Likewise, there are the "intellectuals" who won't march down the street in a brownshirt with swastika armbands (and may be turned off by that).

Unity people! That's the only way to win! Remember: there are different factions with different policies, views and tactics, but its the one movement!

Good points.

Just a note: "Sans cowardice" means "without cowardice."

In other words, I was saying ES is NOT a coward, although he is closer to the main-streamer White Nationalist end of the continuum than I had realized -- and I was saying he should NOT have criticized or ridiculed Skinheads, Nazis, Hitler and Hitler's National Socialism (as you also indicated) -- to the enemy or even for the benefit of the lemmings.

Good points.

Just a note: "Sans cowardice" means "without cowardice."

Noted - sorry about that. Like Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors without borders). :cheers:

Also, why would someone go through all the trouble of "denying the Holocaust", with all the flak that entails, just to condemn Hitler and the Third Reich anyway?

Someone trying to ride the fence, that's who. He needs to pick a side, and stick to it. Either be a Nazi-condemning, jew-loving ZOGling, or a Holocaust-denying, jew-naming, White Nationalist man, but not both. I think if Mr. Steele were to come out and clarify in a nickel rant that his attempts to curry favor with Joe and Jane Zogstein were misguided, and that he didn't really mean his affronts to Hitler and "Nazis", then I believe everyone could forget about these recent equivocations. But, a few more TV appearances like the one with Donny Doucheberg, or a few more Nickel Rants like this one, and I think the credibility issue will be irredeemable.

...........
Unity people! That's the only way to win! Remember: there are different factions with different policies, views and tactics, but its the one movement!

I hear this unity stuff all the time. I have never known what it means. Unity with what, regarding what, for what purpose?

Rather than some abstract notion like unity, what different groups of people need to be doing is building their own strength and power through better organization and harnessing of resources and resource flows, and better production and dissemnation of our viewpoints. No "unity" is needed for that at all. In fact, "unity" in the sense of trying to coordinate people with wildly divergent viewpoints, is lots of trouble for little payoff.

Stop worrying about this unity stuff. I have never seen a very successful WN operation or activist that spends much time at all talking or worrying about unity.

Someone trying to ride the fence, that's who. He needs to pick a side, and stick to it. Either be a Nazi-condemning, jew-loving ZOGling, or a Holocaust-denying, jew-naming, White Nationalist man, but not both. I think if Mr. Steele were to come out and clarify in a nickel rant that his attempts to curry favor with Joe and Jane Zogstein were misguided, and that he didn't really mean his affronts to Hitler and "Nazis", then I believe everyone could forget about these recent equivocations. But, a few more TV appearances like the one with Donny Doucheberg, or a few more Nickel Rants like this one, and I think the credibility issue will be irredeemable.

I think you're right in this, John.

I think you're right in this, John.

I wrote that before seeing ES' post from a couple of days ago. Clearly, he is not on the same page as most of us, and won't be clarifying his position in any satisfying way any time soon. While I accept the fact that he is no fan of Hitler and it is reasonable to assume that we won't successfully rehabilitate Hitler for the masses (which is unneccessary anyway), that still doesn't explain his seeming need to vilify Hitler. Why not just decline to mention Hitler at all?!? Going out of his way to vilify Hitler and "Nazis" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I hear this unity stuff all the time. I have never known what it means. Unity with what, regarding what, for what purpose?

Rather than some abstract notion like unity, what different groups of people need to be doing is building their own strength and power through better organization and harnessing of resources and resource flows, and better production and dissemnation of our viewpoints. No "unity" is needed for that at all. In fact, "unity" in the sense of trying to coordinate people with wildly divergent viewpoints, is lots of trouble for little payoff.

Stop worrying about this unity stuff. I have never seen a very successful WN operation or activist that spends much time at all talking or worrying about unity.

Precisely. Hitler didn't worry about "unity." He led and people followed him and to hell with the rest. Eventually, he "unified" the German people under his banner, but he didn't get there with the big tent. The New Orleans Protocol is "unity." Milquetoast, jew-indifferent, kwanservative limpertarianism is "unity." We don't need it.

I wrote that before seeing ES' post from a couple of says ago. Clearly, he is not on the same page as most of us, and won't be clarifying his position in any satisfying way any time soon. While I accept the fact that he is no fan of Hitler and it is reasonable to assume that we won't successfully rehabiliitate Hitler for the masses (which is uneccessary anyway), that still doesn't explain his seeming need to vilify Hitler. Why not just decline to mention Hitler at all?!? Going out of his way to vilify Hitler and "Nazis" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

This is an excellent point, we aren't going to in the Kwa rehabilitate Hitler for the masses, and as JAF says, it's not necessary for advancing our agenda.

BUT, I agree there's no reason to go out of one's way to vilify Hitler and the German National Socialists, something that Paul Craig Roberts has the nasty habit of doing as well. Tactially it's not smart either because it only reinforces the entire Jewish mythology/brainwashing surrounding the Third Reich. For White Kwans the Third Reich is best left as ancient history given their current limited mental capacity.

I'm not going to read over 100 posts to get the gist of this discussion about Ed Steele and the "N"-word, and I don';t mean "nigger."

I've been dealing with Ed for around ten years now, have enjoyed watching his slow radicalization from Constitutional lawyer to Jew-fighter, and consider him a comrade, though I certainly do not agree with a lot he says. I was responsible for putting all those audiotapes of WLP's ADV talks in Ed's possession because I knew that Pierce's words would resonate with Ed. I was right.

Unlike the more uncompromising Jew-fighters among us, Ed is able to get face-time on the Jew tube because he is still considered safe by our hakennozzled media masters. He appeared as a "respectable" advocate of White separatism, along with another "respectable" WN spokesman, the clownlike Richard Barrett, on that awful Donnie Douche show a few weeks ago and came away from the experience being tarred with the same brush as Barrett. Ed made some good points in defense of his clients, Prussian Blue, but came across as rather milquetoasty to the more hardened, uncompromising National Socialists that would NEVER, I repeat NEVER be invited on a show, in real time, unedited.

I was disgusted with the gratuitous use of the tampered photo Ed used of George Bush sitting with Adolf Hitler in that last rant of his, but I didn't get bent out of shape by it because I've seen Ed speak this way of "Nazis" before, and just figure he reserves the right to become more intelligent on the subject if he keeps listening to WLP, arguably the Leader of NS worldwide at the time of his death.

I saw something that Joe Sobran wrote about his former boss, the slavish Judeophile "conservative" William F. Buckley, Jr., and it struck a chord with me as I thought of Ed Steele's "Nazi"-bashing. I think Sobran's explanation fits Ed Steele, who despite his defensive denials of being a "Nazi," nevertheless is constantly called one by Jews and their kneejerk collaborators for daring to stand up for Whites:

"Bill [Buckley] himself used to be accused of anti-Semitism and even Nazism, which ought to have taught him something about loose charges. But he learned the wrong lesson: he learned that the best way to be safe from them is to make them yourself. When he caught on to that, he was like a kid with a very annoying new toy -- a noisy gun that he points at everyone."

Dr. Pierce laid out in the original National Alliance Membership Handbook how a member should deal with the inevitable question, "Are you a 'Nazi?'" or "Are you a 'neo-Nazi?'" To answer such a loaded question he advised that one must first try to find what is in the mind of his interrogator. It never hurts to buy a little time with a hostile interrogator by using the Jewish tactic of answering a question with a question of your own, like, "What do YOU think a "Nazi" is?" Ask for a distinction between a "Nazi" (who haven't been around since 1945 when they were vanquished by the Bolshevist/egalitarian coalition) and a "neo-Nazi," and know the difference yourself.

Pierce goes on for two pages (120-122) describing the recommended way for an Alliance member to communicate the powerful, positive ideas embodied in National Socialist ideology, depending on whether one is dealing with a hostile media jerk, a brainwashed couch potato, or a truly open-minded, potential recruit. Maybe someone here has the time to cut & paste or transcribe Dr. Pierce's sound advice about that here. I do not.

I'm not going to read over 100 posts to get the gist of this discussion about Ed Steele and the "N"-word, and I don'] himself used to be accused of anti-Semitism and even Nazism, which ought to have taught him something about loose charges. But he learned the wrong lesson: he learned that the best way to be safe from them is to make them yourself. When he caught on to that, he was like a kid with a very annoying new toy -- a noisy gun that he points at everyone."

Dr. Pierce laid out in the original National Alliance Membership Handbook how a member should deal with the inevitable question, "Are you a 'Nazi?'" or "Are you a 'neo-Nazi?'" To answer such a loaded question he advised that one must first try to find what is in the mind of his interrogator. It never hurts to buy a little time with a hostile interrogator by using the Jewish tactic of answering a question with a question of your own, like, "What do YOU think a "Nazi" is?" Ask for a distinction between a "Nazi" (who haven't been around since 1945 when they were vanquished by the Bolshevist/egalitarian coalition) and a "neo-Nazi," and know the difference yourself.

Pierce goes on for two pages (120-122) describing the recommended way for an Alliance member to communicate the powerful, positive ideas embodied in National Socialist ideology, depending on whether one is dealing with a hostile media jerk, a brainwashed couch potato, or a truly open-minded, potential recruit. Maybe someone here has the time to cut & paste or transcribe Dr. Pierce's sound advice about that here. I do not.

I'd be interested in finding out what Dr. Pierce says on the subject and what you have to say on the subject, but here's how I would distinguish the two terms Nazi and Neo-Nazi. A Nazi is a National Socialist, in line with Hitler's envisioning of National Socialism. A Neo-Nazi is a derogatory jew term summing up the anti-German, anti-Hitler Hollywood myth of what the jews want the White public to think of when they hear the word Nazi.

Interesting to get your take on this thread. Thanks for checking in.