I'm gonna treat Christianity like an insane maggot treats a mound of elephant-shit
I'm gonna treat Christianity like an insane maggot treats a mound of elephant-shit
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...#comment-55847
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=4919#post4919
@Hadding Scott: “The Turner Diaries…says on the back, ‘What will you do when they come to take your guns?’ The novel was aimed at gun-enthusiasts. It was to get them to think about the racial and Jewish problems, and to see the direction in which society was headed based on 1970s trends.
“Hunter was written mainly because The Turner Diaries had turned out to be so profitable.”
@Jason Speaks: “With regards to Pierce, while I’ve read a few good things by him, especially about Haiti, the fiction he wrote doesn’t strike me as likely to entice anyone to join a pro-White movement, who wasn’t already sold on the idea in the first place. I cannot imagine a neophyte picking up his fiction and thinking, “Oh, now it is clear to me why I must fight for White survival”.
Hunter is the better novel, though it doesn’t have the notoriety that attaches to The Turner Diaries. It doesn’t just get the reader to consider the race problem and the Jew question, and predict how things will unfold, but delves into the differences between tactical and strategic thinking, and, more importantly, to me anyway, the taboo of religion: the unsuitability of Christianity when dealing with truth and reality. It also deals with the subject of honor among our people. I was no neophyte when I first read Hunter back in early 1991, but I was certainly moved by it. Anyone who is not moved by the blurb on the back cover of Hunter is not likely to have that “aha!” moment and become active in pro-White activism with a high level of dedication — but, then, pro-White activism, especially as a cadreman, is not for everyone. It’s pretty much for the few who to whom these words resonate:
It’s not difficult for some of us to slot people we meet into one of those three categories, mostly the first two. Dr. Pierce was looking for that special truth-seeker, ideologically sound, who felt he should be in the third one, but perhaps had yet to find his purpose in life. As to how this relates to truth, like he concluded in his The Destruction of the Academy :
http://williamlutherpierce.blogspot....f-academy.html
“Without honor one cannot expect truth to prevail.”
It’s not rocket science, but it helps to have had a rocket scientist on our side to explain it for us (even if that professor fell down once in 1968, leaning on a door that obviously had a design flaw).
Hadding’s article mentions Dr. Pierce, but I’m sure he never intended for commentary about it to become a referendum on him. Perhaps discussion of Dr. Pierce could pick up here:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...?show=comments
He explains so well why professors are liberal.
Correction: in re-reading that uneditable 11/30 comment at the other TOO thread I see: “[Dr. Pierce] thought as little of conservatives, if not more so, than he did liberals…” That nonsensical statement should, of course, read “[H]e thought as little of conservatives, if not *less*, than he did liberals…
I'm gonna treat Christianity like an insane maggot treats a mound of elephant-shit
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...#comment-55847
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=4919#post4919
@Hadding Scott: “The Turner Diaries…says on the back, ‘What will you do when they come to take your guns?’ The novel was aimed at gun-enthusiasts. It was to get them to think about the racial and Jewish problems, and to see the direction in which society was headed based on 1970s trends.
“Hunter was written mainly because The Turner Diaries had turned out to be so profitable.”
@Jason Speaks: “With regards to Pierce, while I’ve read a few good things by him, especially about Haiti, the fiction he wrote doesn’t strike me as likely to entice anyone to join a pro-White movement, who wasn’t already sold on the idea in the first place. I cannot imagine a neophyte picking up his fiction and thinking, “Oh, now it is clear to me why I must fight for White survival”.
Hunter is the better novel, though it doesn’t have the notoriety that attaches to The Turner Diaries. It doesn’t just get the reader to consider the race problem and the Jew question, and predict how things will unfold, but delves into the differences between tactical and strategic thinking, and, more importantly, to me anyway, the taboo of religion: the unsuitability of Christianity when dealing with truth and reality. It also deals with the subject of honor among our people. I was no neophyte when I first read Hunter back in early 1991, but I was certainly moved by it. Anyone who is not moved by the blurb on the back cover of Hunter is not likely to have that “aha!” moment and become active in pro-White activism with a high level of dedication — but, then, pro-White activism, especially as a cadreman, is not for everyone. It’s pretty much for the few who to whom these words resonate:
—
How should an honorable man confront evil?
Should he ignore it, with the excuse that it is not his responsibility?
Should he ally himself with the evil, because that is where the ‘smart money’ is?
Or should he take up arms against it and fight it with all his strength and without regard for the personal consequences, even though he must fight alone?
—
How should an honorable man confront evil?
Should he ignore it, with the excuse that it is not his responsibility?
Should he ally himself with the evil, because that is where the ‘smart money’ is?
Or should he take up arms against it and fight it with all his strength and without regard for the personal consequences, even though he must fight alone?
—
It’s not difficult for some of us to slot people we meet into one of those three categories, mostly the first two. Dr. Pierce was looking for that special truth-seeker, ideologically sound, who felt he should be in the third one, but perhaps had yet to find his purpose in life. As to how this relates to truth, like he concluded in his The Destruction of the Academy :
http://williamlutherpierce.blogspot....f-academy.html
“Without honor one cannot expect truth to prevail.”
It’s not rocket science, but it helps to have had a rocket scientist on our side to explain it for us (even if that professor fell down once in 1968, leaning on a door that obviously had a design flaw).
Hadding’s article mentions Dr. Pierce, but I’m sure he never intended for commentary about it to become a referendum on him. Perhaps discussion of Dr. Pierce could pick up here:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...?show=comments
He explains so well why professors are liberal.
Correction: in re-reading that uneditable 11/30 comment at the other TOO thread I see: “[Dr. Pierce] thought as little of conservatives, if not more so, than he did liberals…” That nonsensical statement should, of course, read “[H]e thought as little of conservatives, if not *less*, than he did liberals…
Comment