The Heretics' Hour: The Demise of The White Network - What Happened?

Published by carolyn on Mon, 2014-04-28 13:39

April 28, 2014,

Carolyn tells what she knows about the start-up, the growing success and the unexpected and rather violent April 15th  ending of The White Network that she and Tansaafl started together.

  • TWN came about because of Carolyn's desire to have a network;
  • It ended because of Tan's wish to end it and he did it with "a stab in the back";
  • Carolyn is a truth-teller so you can believe what she says about "what happened";
  • Tan supplied the "Drama" for this particular event - Carolyn gives her analogy of one business partner locking the other out and announcing it on prime-time TV;
  • Despite what Tan thought and said, Carolyn doesn't NEED his help, as she is demonstrating by continuing with her programs and BlogTalk makes it all effortless;
  • Inner conviction is necessary for one to continue to put out their message effectively;
  • There were 72 listeners to the live program tonight, according to Blogtalk, and as of 11pm Thursday, 3263 archive listens at Blogtalk and 715 here on (I apologize to the caller at around 90 min. in for not seeing his call, or else it didn't show up. I'm fixing that problem.)


A good broadcast.  Glad you're continuing your work which provides entertainment and enlightement to so many.  I liked Tan but  obviously, for whatever reason, your association was no longer viable.   

<p>Given the topic I can't say I enjoyed the program. But it was educational and obviously it was necessary for you to get your side out Carolyn.<br><br>As you put emphasis on you being a "truth-teller", I will give you what I see the truth is from my admittedly limited point of view, but as someone who has listened (and commented occasionally) to both of your programs right from the beginning.<br><br>I think it is simply a case of a conflict of personalities. More specifically a kind of power struggle, and one that is amplified by the male/female nature of it.<br><br>You have an extroverted, domineering, aggressive aspect to your personality that seeks to control openly. While Tan has a more introverted, non-domineering, non-aggressive aspect that seeks to control via more subtle methods.<br><br>The result is, over time, a build up of resentment on Tan's part as his "clear signals" to "back off" and to show "due respect" to him are not picked up and acted on by you, Carolyn.<br><br>I think Tan was willing to tolerate a partnership where you both wear "trousers" in the household, but became gradually and then suddenly angry when it dawned on him that his trousers had over time turned into a dress. And no self-respecting man can tolerate that.<br><br>So, the result was his sudden "rash" action, triggered by some last straw "idealogical" difference of opinion.<br><br>I think you are both at fault. After thrashing your differences out please then put it aside and turn back to what you both do best — fighting for our race.</p>


The idea that there was some "power-struggle" going on underneath it all is simply not true. I always catered to Tan's wishes for the network and did not make unilateral decisions, EXCEPT about my own programs. He never indicated that he wanted to interfere with my program content, which would have been wrong and intrusive.

You are making the same mistake of thinking you know or can interpret what was going on between people ... who said and did what. Let Tan provide some proof in the form of skype or email messages that there was a serious issue between us. What he actually wrote now is:

This statement and more contradict Carolyn’s portrayal of our disagreement as a sudden one-sided overreaction by me, made solely in response to her White Nationalism, Eurasianism, and the future of Western Europe program on the 12th. In her melodrama-down she explicitly identified me as the sole source of the problem, which she claimed “came straight out of left field”. We see here though that on the 11th she was already identifying our disagreement as an “attack” [where did I use the word attack?? -cy]  and scolding me for it ["scolding" is a weighted word that does not describe my polite objection to his hostile comment on my program page]. As I pointed out in My Mistake, it was Carolyn’s trashing of White nationalism that precipitated our disagreement. This traces back to written comments she made at least as far as the 5th (see the comments of HTT – Episode 5). I think indications actually go back months earlier to more nebulous on-air statements expressing her distaste for White nationalism as a label, though I don’t recall which specific program(s).

Carolyn also complained about “White PC”, and she linked it to her trashing of White nationalism. She had directly named only one person as being guilty of this offense. Myself. [Citation please] After scolding me in private on the 11th she scolded me in public on the 12th, just before her program: (From Why This Archive, April 28, 2014)  [My, my, I'm only replying to him in same terms he is writing to me. Standing up for myself becomes "scolding him." With Tan, you can't win for losing.]

  He admits his unhappiness possibly goes back to April 5th -- 10 days before! -- that's as far back as he can take it. But the real approach to me was on the 12th, only 3 days before! This issue was left without any threat or sense that he was about to do something drastic, but only that he would think about it some more and we could talk again. I was tired and had no appetite on Saturday afternoon for further discussion, but it was actually Tan who stopped talking and went quiet for a long time before we hung up. I guess I was supposed to know his intentions? Plus, on Sunday, I'm working on my Monday show so  had other things to think about. I am always working on a show.

Then he wrote:

I spent most of the 12th, 13th and 14th digesting what Carolyn had said and done, considering what my response would be. It wasn’t until after she told me that Paul had already decided to leave (on the 14th) that I finally settled on doing what I did, which took most of the 15th for me to record and write up.

So yes, it came out of the blue, indeed. He did not say to me, "I am closing down the network, Carolyn" nor did he want me to know what he was up to. He had deemed me to be UNWORTHY of having any say in it, based on his new idea that I was not a White Nationalist. Then he concocts his "justification" for his action, as if his determining I was not a "real" WN were reason enough ... as if there were some agreement written in blood.

So this business of who is "wearing the trousers" does not fit or apply at all to the situation, but is coming from your worldview, katana. You're seeing through the prism of that "dominant male" worldview. [But Tan is not a dominant male, as should be clear by now. You, katana, have made it clear to me, so thanks. -added at 5:20pm CT]

Strangely, and not my doing, this reflects the current social order wherein the female half (me) finds that she does not have to depend on the male half (Tan) who kicks her out of the house, anyway, and she can continue on independently and do just fine. IMO, White men (and certainly many WN men) are causing more "harm to the race" by their overbearing and disparaging attitude toward women, and their ill-treatment of them, than anything else is doing. That has caused women to look elsewhere to seek relief.

As anyone can see, American WN is an all-male movement. In nation-nationalist parties, women patriots are involved to a far greater degree.

Not a good idea to wash dirty linen in public for our enemies to laugh at.

which I don't think applies. Is it better to keep "dirty linen" hidden from the public, while blatant lies are told?

How about this axiom: Don't worry about your enemies laughing at you; worrry about them burying you.

It's not about what your supporters or Tan and his bunch may think of you; it is about the effect this megabyte "he said/she said" exposure is having on all of us in the wider world.  Your supporters will stick with you and your detractors will continue to detract.

What would be the worst thing that could happen if you responded to Tan's silly, dramatic announcement by saying, "I am so sorry about Tan's decision but I will continue with my show as usual at such & such a site etc."  In time, people will discover the truth of the matter. Least said - soonest healed.  Tan could have made the same brief announcement if he felt he didn't want to deal with you anymore.  His purported difficulties with you should have been kept quiet.

I told Tan the same damn thing but he didn't publish my comment. I agree with you that there might be some anti-woman thing going on here.  There is a goodsized contingent of pro-white men who hate women.

Whatever different views you have had on WN, Tan's action show emotional irrationality. Katana is probably right. His cry-baby behavior is just projected on this topic. There is more behind it. Or Tan just got scared and bailed out without admitting his cowardliness. 

And I don't think the enemy laughs as long as Carolyn continues. They would only be satified if Carolyn would be forced to shut up, if the White Network were her only outlet. So, if this attack was sabotage, nice try but it didn't work.  

If Tan had a valid point, he would convince Carolyn with rational arguments that she is wrong. Tan proved himself to be unstable, and a bad business partner, regardless of the cause of the network. Instead of showing off immature behavior, I would be interested in an open discussion on White Nationalism, Eurasionsm, European nationalism, pan-Europeanism, pan-Slavism, pan-Germanism etc. and if that alone is enough or if a world view needs to be attached to these concepts. Obviously, there is room for discussion and co-existence. A White Nationalism-only imperative sounds very one-sided. 

1) It is incontrovertable that Carolyn Yeager is and has always been the registered OWNER of the still-registered

2) It was publically hijacked and STOLEN on 04-15-2014: 

" I have decided, without consulting with or seeking Carolyn Yeager's consent, that The White Network will no longer be used to record or broadcast any new programs. There will be no further posts or comments. -TANSTAAFL "

3) Carolyn Yeager's STOLEN website has now been cloned in its entirety, with newly added posts and comments of actionable slander and actionable defamation:

Surprised I'm sending Carolyn a donation so she can hire lawyers to prosecute this brazen crime:

Hi Carolyn,

If you recall I had put a nasty comment or 2 on one of your shows where it looked to me like you were attempting to replace the Jewish Problem with a German problem.  I was of course the rash one in those comments and hope tanstaafl wasn't negatively influenced by them in any way.  When I posted something along those lines that you probably should have deleted my nasty knee-jerk comments I honestly meant just that.  It wasn't some type of "I used to be a WN but now I'm not" comment.  I'm interested in Holocaust research as I think you know.  I thought you and tanstaafl would kiss and make up in a day or 2 and am entering my 2 cents now to un-influence tanstaafl if it was in fact the case that he took my nasty comments in the wrong way.  I am not and never have been a WN, although I like David Duke's positions on a number of things nowadays (I'm aware you think he's a milquetoast).

This is very decent of you, Blake. I surely don't hold you responsible, but can't speak for him.

I like milquetoast better than Tanstaafl's saying that I (Carolyn) hated David Duke. Why would I "hate" him? I've never met him.

Interesting show; with all the complications surrounding Tan it is better that you two went your separate ways.  I had also noticed that Tan had put up the old archives of the White Network.  It is totally counterproductive of him to make the network archives available only to tear them down with a sophomoric rant against you on the homepage.  I thought you did a fair job critiquing the situation and you are a "truth teller".  

I would have to agree with Tan's skepticism on the 9-11 Truth movement however; I fear that taking it seriously may detract and compromise the revisionism work that you have done.  

You stated that you listen to Rush Limbaugh; I would like to hear your critique on him.  I can understand some of Rush's criticism on environmentalism but I find him ignorant about natural sciences and he cares next to nothing about conserving our natural heritage.  

I also watched the video on the Occidental Observer which covered Britian's changing demographics; you are correct to point out that an economic collapse may stop the flow of non-Europeans; an environmental collapse could hasten economic problems.  For example the recent droughts in California have effected food prices.

"You stated that you listen to Rush Limbaugh; I would like to hear your critique on him."

Oh, I only hear a little bit of him twice a week on my car radio ... maybe. So sometimes a catch a little bit. He tries to be real friendly toward Blacks; it's the Mestizos he's wary about, that is, immigration. He despairs over the Republican party thinking they need to support "immigration reform" in order to ever win another election. He's just less irritating than the Texas Public Radio, but sometimes they have something on of interest. Otherwise, I just turn it off and play a tape.

I think we're going to have an extremely hot and dry summer in south-central Texas. I hope I am wrong.

Carolyn, so glad you continue the battle for white people and the truth (via your Carolyn Yeager website and broadcasts) no matter how painful it may personally and professionally be to you. You have the spirit of a true Aryan warrioress.

Simply because Tan administered the website and provided music for thewhitenetwork, does not mean he had any capability to bring to the network the genius that you, Carolyn, bring to us all multiple times each week. You are a true jewel and a blessing to all Whites of pan-aryan persuasion. Do not be discouraged.  Your programs are needed so much, as they provide moral and valuable mental/emotional support to all thinking whites who are starved for the truth. 

I would love it is you could get Paul Hickman back, as he gives great insight into the British white nationalist scene and I also enjoyed and looked forward to his program each Sunday.

I listened to your first (post Tan) broadcast of AH Tabletalk 042414 and thought it was just fine as far as quality of broadcast, volume, etc.

Tan has some issues with you and if he were any kind of a white aryan gentleman, he would have addressed those issues to you  directly and privately. Instead he consciously chose to blow up your differences and blow up TWN in the process.  So, all things considered, you are far better off without Tan, so you might want to consider what happened a blessing in disguise.

You can find Paul Hickman's show now at Renegade Broadcasting on Wednesdays.

Carolyn, did you get it all off your chest ?

Now stop letting time pirates steer your ship and move on.

The trees have bared their fruit, it's sour tasting, the trash has exposed themselves with just a wee nudge.

Carolyn, I am more than happy for you to delete this if you wish.

I want to make the point that if you made a comment on the old WN site, it said, "Your comment is awaiting mderation". That was helpful to someone making a comment. You knew it was posted subject to moderation.

Here it does not say anything, so you don't know as a commenter, if the comment was made successfully or if it disappeared into the ether, and if you actually saw it! Also I note that some commenters have a "Not verified" tag next to their name. That looks as if some people made comments without your prior approval. It leads me to think that maybe my comment never got through.

The comment I made here was about Tan having a Jewish family and how that would be bound to bite you sooner or later. I notice no one else made a similar comment, so I assume you had your reasons if you deleted such comments.

I have no problem with you moderating, altering or deleting a comment I might make and in the past I was glad you did! But that is not the point I am trying to make.

Now this should have gone on the "About the Comments" post, lol. Wow, people should realize how important it is to put their comment in the right place. And also to read what has already been answered about their question.

I'm not scolding you, lol, as I'm glad to have the opportunity to answer your questions. This website uses Drupal software. It works differently than Wordpress, which is what most websites use these days. Thus, what it offers for "Comments" is quite different and I can't change that, plus see no reason to.

I have disabled the registration and verification requirement, but I still retain the "Approve" function. Therefore, every comment is "unverified." I don't even see your email address, for that reason. You just have to trust that I see every comment and make my decision based on whether it's not spam; after that on whether it's not offensive to my standards. You're right, I don't want people to post here bashing "Tanstaafl" for having a half-jewish wife and quarter-jewish kids. Mentioning it is alright, but what you wrote was just your own opinion as to what course of action he should take in his family life. I do this protective moderation, even though he allows any and all ugly trashing of me from his annonymous commenters at his blog. "Tan" has really reduced himself to very low levels. I'm working on another article on this subject which I hope to have up tomorrow.

As to your prior comment, it was published, just with a great part of it removed, which I indicated with [...]. I'm glad you're alright with that and I hope you will continue commenting here. I welcome what you have to say. Smile

P.S.. The default font is something like 10 pt. Arial. I invite everyone to use the rich-text options that are available here ... with restraint. Quite an improvement over most "Comments" options elsewhere, I would say.

Hi Ms. Yeager,

Sorry to hear about the demise of the White Network. I knew that Tan was a good for nothing man.

Keep up the good work.



None of these 'movements' are real. They're created, controlled and lead by the establishment to corral and manage undesirables, who might otherwise be doing something revolutionary. 

This TAN individual smacks of a handler to me. He went into damage control mode as soon as it became clear that the integrity of his fellow assets in the 'movement' (and the 'movement' itself) was threatened by Carolyn continuing her work.

Carolyn's shows are interesting, but Tanstaafl has always been a pseudo-intellectual bore - he's like a spoiled kid who takes his ball home so that no one else can play -who's he to define precisely what white nationalism is - who died and made him the expert? - this is nothing other than censorship, on his part, if you ask me.

What's most offensive about Tanstaafl is all of the self-righteous nonsense he spews, attempting to convince any who'll listen that he's some sort of leader in the white nationalist movement. He portrays himself as a hero who is defending the cause, and in so doing he wants us to believe that Carolyn is somehow morally inferior to him, such that he feels obliged to cast her out, as an enemy of white nationalism. This characterization is absurd....there are plenty of disagreements among those who identify themselves as "white nationalists", and there's no real consensus among proponents as to how the term should be defined. To characterize Carolyn as an opponent of white nationalism is simply ridiculous, as anyone who follows her work knows.

To Bunny: I'm becoming very disenchanted by individual "white nationalists," to the extent that while I want to live in a White separatist society as much as it is possible, I do not want to be ruled over by any who call themselves "White Nationalists" today.

You're right that they are about as disparate a bunch of people as can be found. They can't get along at all. So the "White Nationalist" label doesn't mean much and I will never use it for myself.

To Carolyn: Yes, I used to call myself a conservative, but now that people like Sean Hannity identify themselves as such, I no longer use that label to describe myself, even though I think it's a fitting term. I certainly wouldn't wish to be ruled over by most of those who call themselves by that name today.