The Heretics' Hour: Truth-telling Isn't For Sissies

Published by carolyn on Mon, 2012-06-25 19:48

June 25, 2012

Carolyn Yeager asks whether Whites are doing what is best for Whites, or are they more concerned with avoiding criticism and “getting along.” This goes for “Truth” organizations like CODOH (Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust) as well as “world affairs-historical study” organizations like the IHR (Institute for Historical Review) professes to be. It also goes for White Advocacy groups in the form of Internet radio networks, online magazines, publishing, and influential blogs that so many racially-conscious Whites follow and trust.

Carolyn makes the point that “politics” and “personal success” are two concerns that people have that get in the way of their sticking with the truth. The tendency to water down the real truth so as not to offend this or that group, or lose market share or lose standing in some way is very real, unfortunately. We need to quit following “leaders” who can’t stand up to pressure and don’t have the right balance between firmness, forcefulness and flexibility.


15 Responses

  1. David

    June 26, 2012 at 7:51 am

    Great show, great opening about VoR and how it has morphed into another “alternative viewpoint” site. Keith Preston is a Marxian hippie, and has an overinflated opinion of himself as well. What a shame that Dietrich had to leave in the early days as he brought the best White sensibilities with him from VNN and National Vanguard. tWn could use another great White advocate like Alex Linder. If he could refrain from the derogatory terms he is fond of using :-)

  1. Roger

    June 26, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    I agree about Keith Preston. His interview with Sean Gabb was interesting, but the endless “anti-state” rhetoric reminds me of the standard fare pumped out by the Jews from the Mises Institution (“anarcho-capitalism”), and of “Ayn Rand”. We should not have an aversion to authority, but to corruption. Unlike National-Anarchists, I am not so cynical that I believe all authority is corrupt. Their view of authority is not a world apart from Theodor Adorno’s theoretical “authoritarian personality”.

    As for his love of interviewing non-whites, that is not a real problem for me. I think it is a good idea to draw links with nations outside of Europe, as did Hitler. The problem with Preston is that his form of internationalism has two major shortcomings: a) it is not rooted in an explicit, non-negotiable ethnocentrism for us, and b) it is predicated on anarchism, which cannot function in the long term. If the political system collapsed and we entered into stateless anarchism, a new one would emerge sooner or later.

    @ David: I think Alex Linder’s aggressive and offensive manner of speaking is one of his best virtues. Compared to the innocuous and desperate desire not to offend when people like Duke, MacDonald and Sunic speak, it is a breath of fresh air to hear VNN broadcasters speaking without restraint. It’s a shame VNN radio came to a halt! Linder is planning to reboot Radio Istina, though, which is good news.

  1. who+dares+wings

    June 26, 2012 at 9:08 pm

    IIRC VOR started out as a platform for Peter Shaenk who abandoned Shaenktalk Radio to collaborate on the new network with Mike Conner, Mishko and Dietrich (I think). Is there a Peter Shaenk archive somewhere? If so, please post a link because I thought he was as good as it gets on the JQ. Alex Linder, Craig “Chain” Cobb and Pastor Martin Dzerzhinsky Lindstet are guilty pleasures. Linder has been promising to “reboot” Radio Istina for two years. Carolyn Yeager, Deanna Spingola and Veronica Clark make the WN Ph.Ds look like punters at least when it comes to engaging broadcasts. What a breath of fresh air!

  1. Chechar

    June 26, 2012 at 9:35 pm

    Just for the record: These are my blog articles on conspiracy theories.

    I consider myself a hardliner on the JP (anyone who wants to expel all of them is a hardliner).

    Btw, I also like Alex Linder a lot.

  1. Carolyn

    June 26, 2012 at 10:52 pm

    Here’s the archive page for Peter Shaenk:

    But WDW, Pastor (??) Martin Lindstet is nasty, nasty. You should feel guilty alright.

  1. brucewhain

    June 27, 2012 at 3:15 am

    Well, I hate to say i told you so.

    Tell these mealy mouthed dummies to get your property off their oily website! … and to do it FAST! There is no point in arguing with them. Their intentions are painfully obvious: to turn a beacon of free speech into something palatable to the most extreme intransigent and pompous exterminationsist, thereby making the world safe again from any likelihood that truth will be told. No doubt they have already destroyed considerable material they consider to be dangerous. Given this kind of M.O. it should be easy enough to buy up all evidence refuting their (now refined due to OUR thoughtful criticism) horror story suffered ONLY by Jews, and remove it from circulation within another 50 years. As a practical matter, one important service we (well not me) might undertake is to buy it up ourselves. But no one even knows what to buy!

  1. Carolyn

    June 27, 2012 at 10:19 am

    Someone just sent me a link to this article by Andrew Hamilton posted at Counter-Currents on June 8. An excerpt:

    Within white nationalism, philo-Semites and anti-anti-Semites are part of the genocidal problem, even when they talk a good line otherwise. We have reached the end of our rope, and there is no margin for error on such fundamental matters.

    As long as Jews or their sympathizers control or substantially influence this movement, racial destruction and totalitarianism must inevitably result, just as Buckleyite conservatism, another philo-Semitic Trojan horse, played an indispensable role in destroying American liberty and erecting the anti-white globalist police state we suffer under today.

    I certainly agree with that excerpt. Yet Guilliaume Faye, a noted philo-semite who was a porn actor in his younger days and who professes the “exterminationist” (Jewish) line for the “Holocaust”, is on Counter-Currents list of Distributed Authors and is recommended as essential reading by Greg Johnson. Johnson wrote:

    If you are to read just one book from the European New Right, Guillaume Faye’s Why We Fight: Manifesto of the European Resistance (London: Arktos, 2011) should be that book. Why We Fight is written with the utmost lucidity to reach the broadest possible audience. Faye explains the dangers to European civilization posed by Third World colonization, American-style global capitalism, and liberalism’s poisonous culture of guilt, grandiosity, and resentment.

    Roger Devlin writes in a review of the book:

    [Faye] sees even nationalism as a kind of sectarianism which European man cannot afford at present: “when the house is on fire domestic disputes are put on hold.” For this reason, Faye has never belonged to the Front National, but has more recently lent support to the French Euronationalist organization Nationality-Citizenship-Identity (see

    Like so many other “pro-White” organizations online, there is a sloppy acceptance of books, authors, radio show hosts and programming, etc. that is not carefully vetted or is allowed for dubious reasons, one of which would be the “big tent” philosophy. Some people need to answer to this but they are not doing so, at least not in a serious way.

  1. Chechar

    June 27, 2012 at 11:24 am

    I don’t claim having read Faye’s books, but I understand if he focuses on Muslims rather than Jews (there are millions of Muslims in Faye’s town).

    As to the Holocaust, since I was mentioned in the show on this thorny subject, again just for the record this is what reflects my position. As you can see, it’s not a Mark Weber piece, whom I haven’t read, but Irmin Vinson’s series of articles which have been gathered and published in book form at Counter-Currents not long ago. Even Svigor, one of the foremost critics of the J tribe in the blogosphere, liked that link.

  1. Carolyn

    June 27, 2012 at 12:24 pm


    Read this: The Revisionist and the Judeophile which I posted on April 19 on This goes beyond just focusing on Muslims.

    And also this: Mark Weber Says Millions … , also posted at on May 16.

    You specifically recommended Mark Weber/David Irving (only a month ago) as having the right understanding on Holocaust, after listening to his broadcast on VoR, which I reply to in the post above. Now you are saying you have not “read” Mark Weber. The point is that you try to tell your readers what to think without knowledge on your part. You still take a position based now on Irmin Vinson’s writing. Irmin Vinson is not an authority, but Carlo Mattogno, Juergen Graf, Germar Rudolf and other real investigators are.

    I really appreciate your willingness to answer and discuss criticisms and differences, rather than sending out vituperative personal emails (instead of emails sent directly to the person in question; I see nothing wrong with Tanstaafl emailing your personally with sincere questions) or giving the silent treatment that I have received from others. If debate is what it’s about, let’s debate. Those who don’t want to answer questions are covering up. All I have ever stated publicly is people’s own words, either written or spoken. I have not “made things up” or “slung mud.” I too have not read Faye’s books, nor do I intend to. But I do know the “Holocaust,” which is only a “thorny subject” to those who are afraid of the Jews (or love the Jews — not the same people).

    I believe your feelings are friendly. Let’s keep talking and looking for real solutions.

  1. Roger

    June 27, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    That comment about Goyaume Faye is spot on. “New Right” outlets like Counter-Currents and Arktos are waging a war on their own credibility when they promote him as a “prominent leader”. His ideas are little different from the ones being espoused on, a website that depicts “liberalism” as the prime enemy and the Jews as a harmless group whose own Zionist project should be an inspiration to us all.

    I do not care about Islam – it is not our enemy, and we needn’t even be antagonistic towards the Muslim world. Faye does not simply focus on Muslims, but actively promotes antagonism against them, and actively supports a geopolitical alliance between Europe and Israel. If not for Western politicians’ subservience to Jewish interests, there would be no need for conflict between Europeans and Muslims. When our “leaders” are willing to pretend that Faye is a vital and important intellectual, rather than a quasi-neocohen shrill, it becomes clear that all of them are due a metaphorical beheading.

  1. Carolyn

    June 27, 2012 at 1:40 pm

    P.S. to what I wrote to Chechar. It’s not that Irmin Vinson’s writing is not good, as far as it goes. It just doesn’t go far enough. Admittedly, I have only read what you have posted, but that is the impression I get. Probably, on the whole, Vinson is a good influence. I did quote and comment on one paragraph of his from his article “F–k the Holocaust” on my HH program Monday night.

  1. Chechar

    June 27, 2012 at 1:52 pm


    It is true that I have not read Weber. I only *listened* to him and it struck me as intriguing given that he is the headperson of IHR.

    As to the other debate, are you referring to me? If so which question(s) am I supposed to answer? (Incidentally, at The Occidental Observer today Franklin Ryckaert has posted a couple of comments on that debate.)

  1. Carolyn

    June 27, 2012 at 10:36 pm

    I guess I was just saying to you, and to anyone, that we should keep the channels of communication open and not get angry about differences that will crop up.

  1. Nick Dean

    July 9, 2012 at 5:55 am

    To Carolyn Yeager,

    When generalists (and middle aged women) Deanna Spingola and Maggie Roddin on RBN have radio shows more hardline and uncompromising on race and nation issues than the fluff put out by avowed racialists James Edwards, Richard Spencer and Greg Johnson you know the movement’s lost its way.

    Whether the major movement orgs are compromised by ideological flabbiness or by infiltration – and I think A3P’s and Counter-Current’s open-ness to Mark Weber demonstrates the latter is a possibility – you’re quite right to keep kicking their arses.

  1. Richard

    July 9, 2012 at 10:58 am

    See my Post here: in relation to this discussion.

    @ Nick Dean:

    When generalists (and middle aged women) Deanna Spingola and Maggie Roddin on RBN have radio shows more hardline and uncompromising on race and nation issues than the fluff put out by avowed racialists James Edwards, Richard Spencer and Greg Johnson you know the movement’s lost its way.

    Whether the major movement orgs are compromised by ideological flabbiness or by infiltration – and I think A3P’s and Counter-Current’s open-ness to Mark Weber demonstrates the latter is a possibility – you’re quite right to keep kicking their arses.

    Well said.

    Indeed, the struggle is heating up, and what we all are experiencing, is simply the machinations of change and political struggle; what this means, is that when we begin to excel in thought and action we will, of necessity, be attacked and manipulated to diffuse our effect.

    As to ‘monocausualism’, this a deconstruction from either a lack of experience or it runs deeper. Of course the present situation is OUR fault – to not see this beyond me – but the influences of our opposition can only go as far as WE ALLOW it to continue.

    I have come to accept this authors view on these things, of which I offer here:

    At the very inception of white nationalism, the epilogue of the previous generational struggle to preserve, and reaffirm our traditional American way of life had waned, lost tremendous perceived public ground in this country, if not the world, and was standing on shaky ground politically and socially; this included, to be sure, the aspects of traditional religious persuasions, as well as variants thereof, in which the American religious milieu had, as well, come well on its way into the modern racial milieu of our assorted denizens, that melting pot of social experimentation and forced acceptance of ideas and programmes which were, and remain, anathema to our intrinsic conception of ourselves and those moral philosophies which seek to extend us, as a unique and separate life-force. Out of this milieu came persuasions and beliefs, which would continue to shake the foundations of tradition.

    The above quote is just one, of many, which describe the ‘multifaceted’ aspects of our struggle.

    This is a great discussion, one that will enable our people to move forward.