Thread: WNism isn't funny

James? Are your referring to such writings as the Ducks and Hens by Rockwell when you exhort us to be more creative?
The reason I ask is that I thought I heard a thread of thought there that meant we should emulate the style of the left...that had me worried a bit :O)

I think our enemys are very silly, I laugh at them all the time!

Originally Posted by James

A noteworthy characteristic of WNist writing and discourse is that it's as dry as unbuttered toast. That's not to say that it's not smart, true, and orphic. What I mean to convey is that language, especially a complex one such as English, can be plied in various styles that access different compartments of the human psyche and that there appears to be only a spartan endeavor among WNist to develop more creative and engaging styles of communication.

I agree that it is characteristic of White Nationalists to be intellectual, well-versed, and pro-active; WN'st, as a rule, in my observation, are higher on the food chain, take our present day issues seriously, and would account for the perception that we are 'dry' as a rule.

This may not be palatable to some, but levity, as a social construct is best maintained in the vaudeville acts of suburbia and late night television, not on venues which discuss the broader and more important issues of the day.

I am sure Twitter has openings for this discourse.

Originally Posted by James

[WNist writing is seldom clever, especially on discussion boards. It rarely makes you laugh and is only entertaining on a dialectical or academic level. Everything is an academic thesis or a history report. The language itself is not thought provoking; the adjectives are common and banal, the concepts are straight forward and unimaginatively articulated.

For example instead of saying "an old light bulb" you could say "a greasy light bulb" creating in the minds eye a richer more meaningful picture.

We will have to do better, then.

Originally Posted by James

[The left on the other hand is silly. Everything is a joke to them. Partially it's because they cannot successfully debate the points, but also they seem to have a deeper understanding of people than we do. Bill Maher seems to win his debates, not with logic, but with the illiciting of laughter and ridicule of his audience towards his opponent. Much of the writing on the left is creative, rich, and visual. Their use of the english language is more versatile than our own. I would even describe the left as having more creative intelligence than WNist; from art, to prose, and even music. Most of our media is antique and museum worthy. That's something we might owe to our subject matter, but it certainly doesn't have to be that way.

Occasionally we ought to try to be creative in our prose, artful. We could even try our hand at satire and humor. People seem to respond to humor over anything else. Plus when people read funny things it makes them feel good. Most of what we have to say is admonishing, dire, and sinister. It doesn't make you feel good to read stuff like that all the time. We need to be funner, funnier and make people feel better. In doing so we could shape the image of WNist in a way that made it more slippery for its critics.

I am sure the general poster and Moderator will evolve with time. Your points, here, should be taken at face value by the members.

Thanks for your insight.

Originally Posted by Foggy Virtus

James? Are your referring to such writings as the Ducks and Hens by Rockwell when you exhort us to be more creative?
The reason I ask is that I thought I heard a thread of thought there that meant we should emulate the style of the left...that had me worried a bit :O)

The 'left' means nothing outside of our ideological differences; for years, the Left has won all the Wars in this national contest...obviously, they are doing something right.

Winston Churchill (the criminal) once said that a fanatic is someone who won't change his mind and can't change the subject.
I'm not sure how someone could rain on this idea. It's upbeat; it's merely encouraging people to branch off and develop their writing and communication skills. It's based on observations of similar methods that have shown to be successful elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Keltoi

I agree that it is characteristic of White Nationalists to be intellectual, well-versed, and pro-active; WN'st, as a rule, in my observation, are higher on the food chain, take our present day issues seriously, and would account for the perception that we are 'dry' as a rule.

It's an irony to be at the top of the food chain and yet we consistently are on the losing side of every contest as you mentioned below. There is certainly no pressing need to chaperon the level of seriousness on racialist forums, it's ubiquitous. Chronically serious people who talk often and always of serious issues are a drag to everyone else. At some point we should ask ourselves if we are serious about winning or face the fact that we want to be right more than we want to win. If that's the case then we should really stop pretending we're activist and just call our selves a club; you know like a chess club or a history club. A defining feature of whiteness is creative vigor.

Originally Posted by Keltoi

This may not be palatable to some, but levity, as a social construct is best maintained in the vaudeville acts of suburbia and late night television, not on venues which discuss the broader and more important issues of the day.

Some? Try most.

I'm certainly not saying that everyone needs to go to clown school. It should go without saying that certain subjects need to be discussed in a dialectic timbre. Also not everything funny has to be silly. Humor can be sharp, acidic, or emotive. To connect my idea to Vaudville is a dishonest mischaracterization of what I'm suggesting. We have a mountian range of material on serious issues treated with serious dialogue. I'm not talking about changing or replacing that, I'm talking about growth and development as an addition to what already takes place. It's not even really about humor specifically it's about engaging, dynamic, writing and the utilization of language and communication to draw people in from various cognitive levels and capture them in the net of your concept.

Originally Posted by Keltoi

I am sure Twitter has openings for this discourse.

I guess this is a timid insult.

Originally Posted by Keltoi

I am sure the general poster and Moderator will evolve with time. Your points, here, should be taken at face value by the members.

Thanks for your insight.

Another backhanded insult for absolutley no reason. Translation: What James said here is not worth reading. Would you like me to just copy and paste news clippings?

Originally Posted by James

A noteworthy characteristic of WNist writing and discourse is that it's as dry as unbuttered toast. That's not to say that it's not smart, true, and orphic. What I mean to convey is that language, especially a complex one such as English, can be plied in various styles that access different compartments of the human psyche and that there appears to be only a spartan endeavor among WNist to develop more creative and engaging styles of communication.

WNist writing is seldom clever, especially on discussion boards. It rarely makes you laugh and is only entertaining on a dialectical or academic level. Everything is an academic thesis or a history report. The language itself is not thought provoking; the adjectives are common and banal, the concepts are straight forward and unimaginatively articulated.
For example instead of saying "an old light bulb" you could say "a greasy light bulb" creating in the minds eye a richer more meaningful picture.

The left on the other hand is silly. Everything is a joke to them. Partially it's because they cannot successfully debate the points, but also they seem to have a deeper understanding of people than we do. Bill Maher seems to win his debates, not with logic, but with the illiciting of laughter and ridicule of his audience towards his opponent. Much of the writing on the left is creative, rich, and visual. Their use of the english language is more versatile than our own. I would even describe the left as having more creative intelligence than WNist; from art, to prose, and even music. Most of our media is antique and museum worthy. That's something we might owe to our subject matter, but it certainly doesn't have to be that way.

Occasionally we ought to try to be creative in our prose, artful. We could even try our hand at satire and humor. People seem to respond to humor over anything else. Plus when people read funny things it makes them feel good. Most of what we have to say is admonishing, dire, and sinister. It doesn't make you feel good to read stuff like that all the time. We need to be funner, funnier and make people feel better. In doing so we could shape the image of WNist in a way that made it more slippery for its critics.

A Rose by anyother name is still a Rose

Originally Posted by James

Winston Churchill (the criminal) once said that a fanatic is someone who won't change his mind and can't change the subject.
I'm not sure how someone could rain on this idea. It's upbeat; it's merely encouraging people to branch off and develop their writing and communication skills. It's based on observations of similar methods that have shown to be successful elsewhere.

Developmental change, as a matter of course, is consistent with any evolving system or movement; witness national socialism as it was intended.

WN'sm is no different, as an organic systemic reaction of our Folk. I encourage upbeat and positive answers to these issues.

Originally Posted by James

It's an irony to be at the top of the food chain and yet we consistently are on the losing side of every contest as you mentioned below. There is certainly no pressing need to chaperon the level of seriousness on racialist forums, it's ubiquitous. Chronically serious people who talk often and always of serious issues are a drag to everyone else. At some point we should ask ourselves if we are serious about winning or face the fact that we want to be right more than we want to win. If that's the case then we should really stop pretending we're activist and just call our selves a club; you know like a chess club or a history club. A defining feature of whiteness is creative vigor.

Ah, but there is, as we are attempting to do here, at WNN. The various other venues serve their own needs, while balancing this effort with the greater needs of our political and social strategy.

Being 'right' and 'winning' comprise elements which, at this time, most of our virtual venues and political organizations are not willing or prepared to address; with time, and wordsmanship, will change.

Activism, is another animal all together. If it is revolutionary rhetoric you seek, many here are capable of this discussion. Words, like said before, must be consistent and intelligent, direct and specific...a fine edge to walk.

Originally Posted by James

I'm certainly not saying that everyone needs to go to clown school. It should go without saying that certain subjects need to be discussed in a dialectic timbre. Also not everything funny has to be silly. Humor can be sharp, acidic, or emotive. To connect my idea to Vaudville is a dishonest mischaracterization of what I'm suggesting. We have a mountian range of material on serious issues treated with serious dialogue. I'm not talking about changing or replacing that, I'm talking about growth and development as an addition to what already takes place. It's not even really about humor specifically it's about engaging, dynamic, writing and the utilization of language and communication to draw people in from various cognitive levels and capture them in the net of your concept.

Sorry if my sense of levity is not the same as yours.

Originally Posted by James

I guess this is a timid insult.

Nothing I do is timid; and insulting a kinsman is not in my nature, nor was it my intention to insult you, personally.

Originally Posted by James

Another backhanded insult for absolutley no reason. Translation: What James said here is not worth reading. Would you like me to just copy and paste news clippings?

I will have more to say later; have to go.

Verbiage and strategy, are these the only reasons for Forums and the discussions which it promotes?

With the diverse number of Forums, web magazines, daily news forums and the like, it seems that 'our' audience is quite diverse, and each forum follows the lowest common denominator: Mediocrity.

With the exception of news reports from Pat Buchanan, or Tom Sunic, their audience, seemingly, being of a more broadly based readership, as the vocabulary and historical references are of the stuff of learned experience; the conservative types who read these essays and missives seem to do their part...by voting along the same ideological lines in which their fellows, as well, vote, being briefed by authors like those listed above; most virtual readers seem to just go along, to go along.

Maybe it is just me, but outside of very obtuse and specific scientific journals, there is nothing I won't attempt to read (even if this requires a Dictionary) to familiarize myself with the ever-increasing bulk of information regarding our People, our plight, and our future. In short, I rarely read anything dull; and WN'st perspectives on the news, as journalistic writing goes, is far and away Superior to any mainstream media that I can think of.

I agree, on the other hand, that various styles of communicating are necessary; the over-broad implications of WN'st material being dull or boring seemed, to me, to be painting too large a canvas and, as I assume my own style is dull and boring, as those I read appeal to my sense of necessity, might just as well turn a certain segment of our people off; I sincerely hope this is not the case.

I encourage all our People to gift to their fellows, whatever their talents might be. Information, of various shades and colours, are what will educate and introduce all of our people to what we, hopefully, believe and struggle for.

If our writers here, at WNN, can communicate their ideas with humor and metaphor, this needs to be done; we have many Moderators here, with just as many styles. I think that all our styles seem to be co-existing very well.



No, James, your style is as welcome here as my own; by all means, we all look forward to more of your input. Although Jamie would like alot more 'copy and paste' just to keep the ball rolling...

So far WN has not been comical, but only if those whites are stuck in the "all is lost mentality".

You start mantra thinking and speaking, and very quickly it becomes a game to easily make fun of people.

You point out the Truth in a comical way, and lampoon the enemy and this cuts them to ribbons.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn observed that the turning point in the Russians' fight against their Bolshevik enslavers came when the inmates in the Gulag camps started to laugh at the guards and the bosses.

I think you've got a great point James that biting humor cuts down the enemy in a way that is unique and invaluable. Solzhenitsyn agreed with you.

And Solzhenitsyn agreed with Keltoi that we need to fight back with all styles, from very intellectual to populist satire.

So, it's not, I think, an either/or situation, but as in so much of life, a both situation.

Originally Posted by beefcake

So far WN has not been comical, but only if those whites are stuck in the "all is lost mentality".

You start mantra thinking and speaking, and very quickly it becomes a game to easily make fun of people.

You point out the Truth in a comical way, and lampoon the enemy and this cuts them to ribbons.

I like it. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Jamie Kelso

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn observed that the turning point in the Russians' fight against their Bolshevik enslavers came when the inmates in the Gulag camps started to laugh at the guards and the bosses.

I think you've got a great point James that biting humor cuts down the enemy in a way that is unique and invaluable. Solzhenitsyn agreed with you.

And Solzhenitsyn agreed with Keltoi that we need to fight back with all styles, from very intellectual to populist satire.

So, it's not, I think, an either/or situation, but as in so much of life, a both situation.

I agree, it isn't an either/or situation. One should not have gotten that message from what I wrote. I think the automatic "contrarian nature", (as you have put it) of many racialists seems to suffocate innovative thinking. We are quick to arrive on the scene and attack one another's ideas as if we were enemies, only pursuing the exercise and stroking of our own egos. If an idea is truly bad then so be it. But often undeserved volumes of energy are brandished towards stifling productive thoughts and concepts merely for the cause and satisfaction of common bullies on the intellectual playground. Everyone believes that their opinions are very important, lol. Mine may not be, but I don't try to synthetically prove their value through the vehicle of automatic peer critique, keeping everyone in the thought corral over which I have crowned myself the self appointed administrator.

The thread title was meant to catch attention, which it did.
However the concept of humor in writing is really only discussed briefly. The overall comment can be outlined as promoting a mastery and knowledge of the English language in order to ply our message in a spectrum of gradients. The academic structure of writing is sound among credible Racialists and will continue to serve an essential function, however what is rare, is a depth of manipulative writing.
Writing that provokes emotion and imagination.

Originally Posted by Jamie Kelso

...that we need to fight back with all styles, from very intellectual to populist satire.

If this is what Keltoi is trying to say then it is redundant...It's the general theme of the entire comment as I have articulated below in bold italics:

WNism isn't funny (Just the title)

A noteworthy characteristic of WNist writing and discourse is that it's as dry as unbuttered toast. That's not to say that it's not smart, true, and orphic. What I mean to convey is that language, especially a complex one such as English, can be plied in various styles that access different compartments of the human psyche and that there appears to be only a spartan endeavor among WNist to develop more creative and engaging styles of communication.

WNist writing is seldom clever, especially on discussion boards. It rarely makes you laugh and is only entertaining on a dialectical or academic level. Everything is an academic thesis or a history report. The language itself is not thought provoking; the adjectives are common and banal, the concepts are straight forward and unimaginatively articulated.
For example instead of saying "an old light bulb" you could say "a greasy light bulb" creating in the minds eye a richer more meaningful picture.

The left on the other hand is silly. Everything is a joke to them. Partially it's because they cannot successfully debate the points, but also they seem to have a deeper understanding of people than we do. Bill Maher seems to win his debates, not with logic, but with the illiciting of laughter and ridicule of his audience towards his opponent. Much of the writing on the left is creative, rich, and visual. Their use of the english language is more versatile than our own. I would even describe the left as having more creative intelligence than WNist; from art, to prose, and even music. Most of our media is antique and museum worthy. That's something we might owe to our subject matter, but it certainly doesn't have to be that way.

OCCASIONALLY we ought to try to be creative in our prose, artful. We could even try our hand at satire and humor. People seem to respond to humor over anything else. Plus when people read funny things it makes them feel good. Most of what we have to say is admonishing, dire, and sinister. It doesn't make you feel good to read stuff like that all the time. We need to be funner, funnier and make people feel better. In doing so we could shape the image of WNist in a way that made it more slippery for its critics.

Again, I don't really see how these comments are debateable. But I know I can count on someone finding a way to debate them.

I'm not mad about that BTW.

Originally Posted by James

Most of what we have to say is admonishing, dire, and sinister. It doesn't make you feel good to read stuff like that all the time. We need to be funner, funnier and make people feel better. In doing so we could shape the image of WNist in a way that made it more slippery for its critics.

Great points. In my opinion, we should embrace every culture and trend which leans in our direction.

When someone does a google search for classical music, they could end up on Stormfront or WNN. Search for Ron Paul, and you'll eventually be introduced to an article that espouses our views. If someone does a search for paleo conservatism, they could reach forums or articles which explain things from our point of view. This is the result of our hard working undercover lovers.

After posting their dry and intelligent posts, our moderators put on their superhero overalls and infiltrate every implicitly white culture on the internet. WNN is the batcave, our command center where we gather information and syncronize our watches before the next mission. The real action is on the streets and on implicitly pro-white websites out there.