Tag Archives: bill rhyes

Carolyn Yeager’s “Offer”

nope_key

Bill Rhyes, who I spoke with last month, spoke with Carolyn Yeager last week. I’ve wasted too much of my life on Carolyn Yeager and don’t wish to waste any more – but she directed a disingenuous “offer” to me, accompanied by a veiled threat. I think it calls for a clear response.

Her “offer” starts at 1:27:00. She begins by reading a prepared statement, her latest version of what she says happened between us and why. As far as I can tell she hasn’t posted the text anywhere online, and I’m not going to bother transcribing it all. It’s mostly the same combination of sobstory, gossip, and speculation that she’s been serving up since the day I ended our partnership. Her whole Danny-boy/Tanny-boy story, for example, is real only in her own mind. But it is telling that she prefers to imagine such inter-personal intrigue, fictional soap opera nonsense really, rather than accept the reasons I’ve actually provided.

I laid out those reasons in My Mistake. Most of what I had to say to or about her is in the comments of The End. In response Carolyn quickly shut down the original tWn server. A month or so later I got a new domain, set up a new server, restored the content from a backup copy, and added Why this Archive to explain the changes. Over time I also attached several updates to that one post, mostly to note Carolyn’s ongoing hostility and demands. (I’ll be adding a new update there linking to this post.)

Now, speaking with Bill Rhyes, she makes a fresh demand that she couchs instead as a diplomatic “offer” (skip to 1:36:00):

I wouldn’t mind having my shows, text and all, on his archive site, if he didn’t have all the stuff he added on there after saying he was gonna freeze the site as it was.

I’m not even slightly tempted to go along with this.

First, I know she is not speaking in good faith. She shut down the original server when the only thing on it was My Mistake and The End, without any additional comments. She shut down the whole site to suppress just that. She’s now all the more bitter about Why this Archive because it spells out this and more, liberally quoting and linking her own statements, detailing many telling things she said and did.

Second, I long ago addressed her phoney “he’s stealing my podcasts” claim here and here. I also long ago provided a definitive answer to her constant demands and claims of ownership. That answer has not changed.

Third, I know Carolyn wants ALL these critical posts of mine memory-holed because she thinks they make her look bad. She deleted everything when she had the chance. She really doesn’t care about the archive as a whole or even the redacted text and the podcast links that I’m supposedly stealing. Everything of hers has always been hosted in full on her own site, which I have never had anything to do with and have never interfered with in any way.

Fourth, all her bluster about ownership and stealing flies in the face of the fact that she paid all the tWn bills with other people’s money, handled and ultimately claimed all that donated money for herself personally, and never provided any accounting for any of it.

Last but certainly not least, her “offer” truly is just another self-serving demand, offered only out of concern for her own ego/reputation and followed directly by a clumsily-worded personal threat:

I think the whole thing is unseemly. What he’s done. So if he does not do what I ask, umm, I’m prepared to copyright all my programs and take legal action against him for stealing them from my website. And additionally I will put up a page using my domain name of thewhitenetwork.com – I do own that domain name, I always did – and tell the true story of Mr. Tanstaafl and the White network in a better and more complete way than I’ve done before. So I’m not trying to make threats here but I wanted to make this offer for a way to kind of bring this White network thing to a better ending than what it has come to.

That’s just it. She wants more. I don’t. I ended my relationship with Carolyn Yeager exactly because I no longer wanted to help her, to argue with her, or have anything whatsoever to do with her. I never took anything from her, I don’t need anything from her, and frankly I’m fine with the archive site as is. I’m not going to change anything to suit her, and I certainly will not delete the very documents which best capture what actually happened as it happened. She can blubber self-righteously about her imagined victimhood all she wants. The online record tells a different story.

Except for the part about suing me, her threat reminds me of Rodney Martin’s. My response to her is the same I made to him. I doubt there’s anything more to her “true story” that she hasn’t already gone on and on about. What she’s really implying is her intent to dox me. Some bullshit copyright suit is just a pretext for that. What she’ll discover is that everything I have ever said about myself is true. What I think is most important about Carolyn Yeager I discovered and stated last year. I should never have agreed to work with such an egotistic and vindictive woman. As I’ve said, my mistake.

Talking with Bill Rhyes

might_is_right

I’ll be live with Bill Rhyes this Thursday night, 2 July 2015, at 8pm ET (7pm CT) on his program, The Might is Right Power Hour. You can listen and call-in via TalkShoe. Chat via http://mightisright.net/. The mp3 download will be linked here when it becomes available.

We plan to discuss A Personal Disclosure, my role and focus, the White network, White suicide vs genocide, The 14 Words, Breivik, Roof, and more. Join us.

UPDATE 02 July 2015: Bill and I spoke for a bit over 3 hours. Here’s the mp3.

Fear and Genocide

white_pathology

I argued in the last installment, Pathology and Pathogen, that jewish psychoanalytic theories of “anti-semitism”, as a form of inborn mental disorder that afflicts non-jews, are not just a pseudo-scientific fraud, a one-sided view of jews as blameless dressed up as disinterested and authoritative science, but that behind that fraud, driving it and enabling it to work effectively, are real racial differences in consciousness and mentality.

In short, the jews deliberately psychopathologize Whites to manipulate Whites. And they generally get the defensive, demoralized, ennervated reaction they seek. As an example, even some Whites who have a greater than average understanding of race and the jews pay lip service to a vaguely defined “white pathology”, a loaded term which to a degree adopts the jewish view, seeing Whites as afflicted with a congenital mental disease which is the ultimate source of any problem we complain about.

Andrew Joyce’s article, which I was responding to, at least implied a connection between White pathological behavior and the jews. I only drew a line connecting those dots. In many other cases, however, the use of the term “white pathology” seems to have the effect if not intent to distract anyone from making a connection to anyone but Whites. The very idea of pointing a finger at anyone besides Whites is seen as irresponsible, as a sign of stupidiy or insanity, or even “white pathology”. It is in these more blatant examples that the solipsistic and tautological nature of the term “white pathology” becomes clear.

I didn’t know until today that when you google “white pathology” the top two hits are to Tim “White Like Me” Wise, a jew who literally makes a living at psychopathologizing Whites. I’ll leave it to the pro-White people who continue to use the term “white pathology” to try and distinguish their thinking and purpose from Tim Wise’s.

One response I got to Pathology and Pathogen reminded me of an important point, another connection, which I’ve neglected to mention.

Tanstaafl is still caught up in his monocausal explanation of White pathology : it’s all the fault of the Jews. … There must exist some congenital weakness in Whites, but Tanstaafl refuses to acknowledge that. In this he is remarkably similar to the Jews themselves : the own group is never at fault.

This kind of comment is an illustration of the jewish psychopathologization I’m talking about. The term “monocausalism” is another way of saying “anti-semitism”. It’s more psychoanalysis. The implication of the term in either case is that it’s stupid and even crazy to find fault with the jews – the only difference is in how much fault.

I took this comment as an attempt to use the very psychological mechanism, the weakness I described Whites as having relative to jews. Jews exploit the White tendency to objectivity and even-handedness by cultivating a truly pathological fear, the fear that siding wholeheartedly with our own race against its enemies is stupid or crazy.

At the root of all this, and the point I’m trying to emphasize this time, is the comforting delusion that Whites don’t have any real problems or enemies but ourselves. In fact, this term “monocausalism” was actually coined a few years ago by someone who was upset that I had identified and criticized the promotion of this delusion, which I called the “suicide meme”. What I had noticed is that certain pundits use the term “white suicide” as a way of blaming Whites and excusing the jews. The idea is that something’s wrong. What’s wrong? Whites are killing themselves! Therefore, not the jews. This kind of thinking is particularly popular with pundits and in forums which allow some limited expression of racial awareness but more or less actively suppress criticism of the jews.

There’s a connection between “white suicide” and “white pathology”. They operate on the same psychological mechanism. The rationale is that we’re supposedly smart and sane if we take responsibility, if we DON’T blame someone else, or at least as long as we don’t blame the jews. So instead we’re encouraged to do something truly stupid and insane, and blame our own race. Not ourselves personally, mind you. That’s a key part of the trick. It’s an appeal to SELF-esteem as opposed to GROUP-esteem. This idea is that our poor race is ill, but not we individuals who are capable and enlightened and accept “white pathology”.

Seeing these mind games and finger-pointing as part of a “conflict of interest” between Whites and jews is a way to explain what’s happening objectively. It’s accurate enough. But perception of the conflict really shifts when you shake off the urge to stick to an objective view, above and outside the conflict. When you recognize jewish manipulation and fraud and take it personally rather than detaching yourself from it. When you recognize the insidiously stealthy and consciously aggressive hostility of an implacable racial enemy. Once you see it this way it’s impossible to justify inaction. When you see the asymmetric relationship between Whites and jews as essentially parasitic, when you realize it has gone on for millenia, then attempts to excuse and shift blame become beside the point. Do you side with your own kind, or with the parasite, the pathogen afflicting them?

Here is another reason why recognizing the long-term, parasitic, asymmetric racial conflict for what it is is more useful than any amount of demoralizing hand-wringing about “white pathology”, “white suicide”, or “monocausalism”. The inevitable fallback, the next false fear that gets played up whenever the “not the jews” trick fails, is that Whites will become “just like the jews”, “as bad as the jews”. The host will turn into a parasite? Wouldn’t that be a neat trick. It’s based on the same premise as Boasianism – the jewish fraud that racial characteristics are superficial and plastic. Who would Whites parasitize even if we could start thinking and behaving like parasites? The other parasites? How would that be worse than being preyed upon and blaming ourselves into extinction?

The nonsense of the “suicide meme” really comes out when compared and contrasted with the more apt term, genocide. I ran across an excellent example this week on Twitter.

Bronze Age Pervert: “When you use made-up words like “genocide” remember to whose tune you’re dancing, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Lemkin there’s a reason word didn’t exist”

Indeed, let’s never forget and never forgive the jews for coining and promoting the word “genocide”, which like “racism” they have used to guilt-trip and psychopathologize Whites. But at least “genocide” captures the essence of the phenomenon, the group conflict, and doesn’t let anyone else off the hook like “suicide” does. I’d be happy to use another word. We could call it “jewicide”, death by jewing. That would fit the toxic effect jews have even on non-White groups. But there’s no good reason for Whites to care about any other genocide more than White genocide. Decrying White genocide is an appeal to White sanity, not a plea for mercy from the jews.

Bronze Age Pervert: “You don’t have to be Frankfurt skrewl Marxist pro-diversity/whatever to be turned off by silliness of “white genocide”/”love your race” bs”

Here’s the pervert’s real problem. He doesn’t identify positively as White. He doesn’t love his race. Even overhearing somebody else saying they do “turns him off”. It’s somebody else’s fault that he’s a narcissist.

Bronze Age Pervert: “@caseysuperstar It’s trite stuff savages do, other races with no history of achievements. White people who need this boosterism are fucked.”

Only “savages” have the good sense to cheer for their own team. “Civilized” folk sneer at their own team. Deny they even have a team. This is how rootless cosmopolitans actually think.

Bronze Age Pervert: “@caseysuperstar It’s sappy victimology, gives comfort to enemy, worst of all false. Problem is white suicide, not genocide.”

That’s the crux of it: “sappy victimology, gives comfort to enemy, worst of all false”. Stupid, stupid, stupid. But that same criticism applies just as well to calling it “suicide”.

I summed up this pervert’s line of thinking: “I wish they’d stop complaining about genocide, it’s suicide”. If it’s suicide, something voluntary, why is anyone complaining about it? Why complain about that complaining? How does that help?

Casey, a self-professed national socialist, didn’t see it my way – he liked the pervert’s twits, and retwitted that last one, which is how I found the rest. Casey summed up his own rationale this way:

Casey: “@eurorabbit @BronzeAgePerv If you want all the good men to run away, don’t take responsibility for anything and create a victim complex.”

“Victim complex”! Psychoanalysis again. We might turn into jews!

Calling it “white suicide” is the opposite of taking responsibility. First, it’s excusing anyone but Whites from having any role. Second, and probably more important, it’s about running away. By calling it “suicide” you’re excusing yourself from having any role in doing something about it.

I’ll wrap up this installment with a few minutes from a recent podcast by Bill Rhyes (“Anders Behring Breivik 2″, 12:12-16:50, 6 Feb 2015). Rhyes addresses the importance of getting our heads straight and offers a clear, unblinking view of the harsh reality of our situation. For that very reason his attitude is an inspiration to good men, good White men.

Fear of genocide. Fear that you’re responsible for not doing anything about it, that you won’t even recognize it for what it is. These are legitimate fears for good White men to have.

Rhyes and Linder on Breivik

inspiration

Bill Rhyes focused his 29 Jan 2015 Might is Right Power Hour program on Anders Behring Breivik, mainly based on information and links in a recent article, Anders Breivik Jewed the Jews, posted at The End of Zion.

Rhyes plays a snippet of William Pierce reading a passage concerning innocence from The Turner Diaries; reads Anders Behring Breivik letter 13-09-29 to International Press, written a little more than two years after the attack in July 2011; reads the analysis written by Alex Linder the week after the attack, here and here; and adds his own insights concerning polarization, means and ends, and more. Rhyes describes how his opinion of Breivik began to change when he learned more of what Breivik himself had to say.

I’ve spent a great deal of time reading, thinking, writing and talking about Breivik. I became familiar with what Breivik refers to as the Vienna school (a nexus of the counter-jihad) and its central exponent, Fjordman about the same time he did. I’m still not sure what Breivik’s true motives were, but I’m happy to find another racialist, beside Linder, who is interested in why Breivik acted and what he accomplished rather than reflexively looking for some excuse to disassociate from him.

I haven’t had anything to say about Breivik since his trial ended almost three years ago because nothing substantial has changed. The evaluation I formed was based on the portions of his compendium he had actually written (as opposed to the large sections he copied from others, like Fjordman, and which many readers mistook took for his), and especially his statement when his trial began. During the trial he clearly and apparently sincerely claimed to be an “ultra-nationalist” who feels a duty and loyalty to his people, in a genetic sense. Breivik is a racialist.

I summed up this evaluation in response to one of the more popular criticisms of him at that time:

“Breivik was a Zionist agent“

Based on what Breivik wrote, he did not understand the jews. His attitudes toward them, and vice-versa, are examined in some detail in the comments of Norway Attacks – Anders Behring Breivik and Kay on Breivik on “The Jew”.

At the moment I don’t think Breivik was acting as an agent for any larger organization. I understand him as a Norwegian/Nordic/European patriot who correctly perceived immigration and multiculturalism as harmful to his people. He aimed his attack at members of the treasonous political class (and their children) he deemed most directly responsible.

From the Kay link:

“I notice that the actions of Baruch Goldstein did not deal a fatal blow to Jewish nationalism. They did not deal even a minor blow to it. Israel did not renounce its frankly racist policies in reaction to that atrocity. It might be instructive to ponder the differences and simlarities between that case and this one.”

Rhyes mentions that The Gates of Vienna published the letter. The two relevant articles are Breivik Repudiates the Counterjihad and Breivik’s “Double-Psychology”, published about a year ago.

Here’s why Bodissey crowed about it:

the Butcher of Utøya told the world that his purported admiration for Fjordman, Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or, et al. had just been a ruse on his part, and that his real ideological commitment was to what he calls “ethno-nationalism” or “nordicism”. He had embraced the Counterjihad in order to damage it, and to draw attention away from his allies among white nationalists and neo-Nazis.

I didn’t bother to write about it at the time because the jewhadis had been condemning and otherwise trying to distance themselves from Breivik all along. Bodissey’s explanation of jewsmedia motives is typically distorted by his jew-blinders:

It’s easy to see why the MSM wanted to bury this half of the letter. It shows them up as gullible fools who took a shrewd psychopathic killer at his word, and parroted the exact line expected of them. Their case against the Counterjihad as “Breivik’s mentors” has been totally destroyed. As a result, they’re no longer interested in discussing the topic.

Media pundits, especially jews, immediately perceived Breivik’s attack as a threat to the jew-led multicult. From the start they tried to shift attention and demonize as broadly as possible all forms of “conservative”, “far-right”, nationalist, anti-islamization and anti-immigrant political expression. This is what they always do, regardless of the attackers or their stated motives.

Some pundits did sift through Breivik’s compendium. Jonathan Kay, for example, picked out Breivik’s references to jews and imagined his own connection to The Turner Diaries. Most pundits no doubt recognized or came to understand that the counter-jihad is kosher, and thus paid it no particular attention. One misidentified it instead as “white supremacist”.

The media was never interested in Breivik’s “real” views, and dropped even the pretense of interest during the trial. The most likely reason the prosecutors ultimately didn’t go after anyone but Breivik is because they believed he conceived and carried out his operation alone.

It has always been difficult to take what Breivik has to say about his motives at face value. He admitted to deliberately lying to trick others even in his compendium. He could very well be lying even about some of his lying. Maybe his story shifted over time simply because his understanding deepened over time. Perhaps his claim that he was just trolling is a way to make himself look clever rather than ignorant or duped.

At any rate, here’s the “out-jewing the jews” portion of his letter:

The reason I chose another <<sales narrative>> in the compendium was among other things to prevent them from immediately ending the ideological discussion with their <<6-million-omg-nazi-enough-said>>- bashing stick. I know a lot of people will be disappointed when reading this, but my love for Israel is limited to its future function as a deportation-port for disloyal jews. I am aware of the sad fact that all available statistics confirm that only aprox. three percent of eurojews oppose multiculti (but from an anti-islamist perspective), and that only approx. 0,2 percent support nordic indigenous rights. I wish it wasn’t so. The reason why so called <<counterjihadists>>, at least the great majority, seemingly <<praise>> Israel, is to avoid the above described suppression-tactic. However, there is in fact a strong anti-nordicist/ethnocentrist wing within the counter-jihad movement, represented by Fjordman and his Jewish network, the EDL-leader, the SIOE-leaders, Wilders, Farage etc., but their organisations are so heavily infiltrated by nordicists and ethnocentrists that it’s hard to say which wing are actually controlling them.

When dealing with media psychopaths, a good way to counter their tactics is to use double-psychology, or at least so I thought. The compendium was, among other things, of a calculated and quite cynical <<gateway-design>> (the 2+?+?=6-approach), created to strengthen the ethnocentrist wing in the contra-jihad movement, by pinning the whole thing on the anti-ethnocentrist wing (many of the leaders are pro-multiculti social democrats or liberalists), while at the same time protecting and strengthening the ethnocentrist-factions. The idea was to manipulate the MSM and others so that they would launch a witch-hunt and send their <<media-rape-squads>> against our opponents. It worked quite well.

It may have worked to some degree, but only at the cost of creating confusion about his true purpose. I think Whites are more likely to be heartened by clear, unambiguous blows against the anti-White regime, minus any such dubious attempts to “out-jew the jews”.

UPDATE 2 Feb 2015: I’ve already made this more about my own analysis of Breivik’s letter, so I might as well add more. In this portion Breivik explains his rationale (which I suspect he constructed after-the-fact) for his shifting narrative:

Apparently, many people didn’t comprehend my deliberate usage of double-psychology, and this is my own fault. In any case, the Fjordman-network figured it out quite early, which explain why they have attacked me so viciously. It wasn’t my intention to cause the outing of Fjordman, with subsequently he being brutally media-raped by 200 MSM-psychopaths. But on the other hand, ethnocentrism gained momentum at the same time as I managed to prevent a significant crackdown against the european and US nordicist movement.

There has been an active power-struggle between the two factions within the contra-jihadist movement for years, and the reason why it’s so critically important to dominate and influence this movement is because it acts as a <<supplier of terms>> to moderate european nationalist parties with a base consisting of tens of millions of europeans. The battle within the <<counter-jihad>>-movement is in many ways a battle for the future content of northern-european nationalism. This makes it even more ironic that many nordicists and ethnocentric nationalists, Stormfront included, still don’t know that I systematically used double-psychology in order to protect them, and in an attempt to prevent the multiculti MSM from using their <<I-win-button>>.

First he says his intent was to cause the “media-rape” of the jewish Fjordman-network. Here he says he didn’t intend that Fjordman be “media-raped”. This is incoherent.

I have seen no evidence of the struggle within counter-jihad that Brevik describes. These two wings he describes – anti-ethnocentrist and ethnocentrist – do not exist within it, but instead distinguish it from the kind of racialist nationalism Breivik says he sides with. CJ is very much a jewish intellectual movement in that it puts the concerns and interests of jews above all others. Fjordman is one example. Takuan Seiyo is another. Those who disagree are purged.

Beyond lacking the courage of their convictions, the Fjordman-network attacked Breivik because they realized, like I did, that his thinking, as stated even in his compendium quoting them, did not match their convictions. They do not support any fundamental opposition to the basic liberal, anti-”racist” premises of the multicult agenda – certainly not with deadly force. However, like the jewsmedia, they do oppose “nazis”, and for the same reasons. Their opposition to islamization is motivated by their main, underlying priority: keeping Israel, Europe, the US, Australia, the whole world really, safe for the jews.

Regarding his “real” motive:

But everyone should know that 22/7 happened in order to try to force a dialogue between the chief editors in the <<big five>> in all 13 nordic countries, and the so called <<fascist movements>> in the corresponding countries.

I remember there was at least one journalist during the trial touching the core of this issue, as he stated; <<The only thing that could prevent the extinction of nordics are racial hygiene-programmes on a full scale, something which is impossible in today’s multiethnic and multicultural societies. Therefore, it is pointless to enter into dialogue with “these people”. We simply cant co-exist with them>>. First of all, we are of course fully aware of the fact that you feel you have no other choice than to suppress us, due to this reason. And you have been brutal the past 68 years. This harsh suppression and persecution has driven thousands of nationalists in northern-europe to suicide, something which explains why these editors don’t like to admit to being responsible for these acts. However, if only more than one out of 5000 nordic journalists could be this honest, 22/7 and approx. 500 annual nationalist and <<racist>> attacks could be avoided in the future.

Of course we understand that full scale racial hygiene-programmes are difficult in today’s societies. But if they had just stopped their bigotry for one second and listened to what we have to say, they would have learned that we can coexist. First of all, one of the reasons the first- and second-generation nordicist leaders have failed with entering into dialogue, is because of their <<all-or-nothing>>-strategy. From a “third-generation” point of view, considering that we lost the european civil war (WW2), the <<all-or-nothing>>-approach has been a complete failure, and continuing this path is counter-productive, irresponsible and may lead to extinction of the nordic race.

Here also Breivik seems to be trying to sound like a mastermind, citing statistics he is pulling out of his ass. With regard to the nature of the jews and the media he comes across as naive. The journalist he quotes has a better understanding of the situation. There will be no dialog or compromise. There is no turning back. They know it. They have chosen their side. They are far more aware of the monstrous crime that has been committed than the general public. They use what power they have to transfer blame for the harm to racialists and nationalists.

The all-or-nothing approach has not failed. It has worked spectacularly… for the jews. The failure has been on the White side. This is where the “it’s not the jews”/”it’s suicide”/”we just have to play the jew-rigged game harder”/”those damn nazis” spirit of “conservative” denial and compromise have prevailed. As this is the mindset which prevailed, this is the mindset which is culpable for the consequences. This is the mindset which is discredited and will be replaced, one way or another.