26:57 / 111 words
[jwplayer file=”http://cdn.counter-currents.com/radio/Fromm-GraceUnderPressure.mp3″ streamer=”rtmp://s3cxt7hxkp9tvh.cloudfront.net/cfx/st” provider=”rtmp” duration=”1617″]
To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save target or link as.”
To subscribe to our podcasts, click here.
In this short talk, Paul Fromm talks about the campaign spearheaded by the Canadian Jewish Congress to have him fired from his job as a public school teacher because of his pro-free speech and anti-immigration activism. He deals specifically with the question of whether it is productive for whites who are under attack to give interviews to the media. The remarks at the conclusion of the talk are somewhat choppy because I edited out questions and comments that were not picked up by the microphone.
6 Comments
Nothing he says of the behaviour of Canadians surprises me. That United Church woman supported him because that church teaches to always be for the underdog. (The good Samaritan syndrome) They support the Palestinians. The sneaky behind the back behaviour is typical too. They will never tell you to your face if they are mad at you or even disagree with you. You find out by innuendo. Gossip rules. For some magical mysterious reason, one is just supposed to know the right thing to say and do.
A conservative MP Rob Anders has called Mandela a terrorist, but his authority is Horowitz. Go figure. Oh the underbelly of Canadian society is not that nice.
All I got from this talk is that front line soldier, Paul Fromm, “gave them hell” but ultimately failed to achieve anything of even slightest note.
By the far best bit was Greg’s suggestion at the end that modern technology can help activists achieve more a more accurate representation of their views, thus leveling the playing field somewhat. That’s true, but I’m afraid it won’t make much difference if the views that activists present mirror Fromm’s own. What is New Right about any of it? It’s more befitting of 1950s alarmist League of Empire Loyalists chatter.
Fromm’s an English teacher so I’m sure if he put his mind to it he could appreciate the value of one of the NLP movement’s tenets: “the meaning of a communication is the response it elicits.” It’s a formidable standard and I can’t claim to have lived up to it very often myself. While it would be foolish to take the tenet literally, the attempt to abide by it is useful in that it shifts one’s focus onto what it is in one’s power to control – ie one’s own words – as opposed to what it is not in one’s power to control – ie, other people’s responses. With this in mind, one might ask the Fromms (or the Dukes, or the Taylors, or were they alive the Olivers or the Rockwells et al) just what, given their lack of desired success, they might have done differently if they could have their time back? If their answer is “nothing at all” then one is right to question the wisdom of heeding their counsel.
I think you are being a bit churlish.
I drew several conclusions from Paul’s experiences:
1. We will not convert our hardcore enemies. They want to destroy us. Thus they must be defeated.
2. Giving interviews to the press is not a good idea because they will never give you a fair break. The principal exception is live radio and TV.
3. He saw no sign of people being recruited in spite of biased press coverage.
4. One has to be psychologically prepared to see the full spectrum of human ugliness.
5. One can still be surprised by human decency, even in the middle of a witch hunt.
6. If one has the right frame of mind, one can still have a lot of fun in this fight, whether one wins or loses.
The lesson from Paul’s experience which was thrust upon him is that direct confrontation is, in the words of George Carlin from his skit about the flamethrower, “I’d say we are fucked if we have to go up against the army.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4nknAzQPHE
Having said that Greg looks to have hit the nail on the head with his meta-politics approach where as Aesop would remind us, the tortoise eventually out ran the hare. The next step in our exciting road to victory could be something such as coffee clubs where in the word’s of “Alice’s Restaurant” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_7C0QGkiVo
You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he’s really sick and they won’t take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they’re both faggots and they won’t take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin’ a bar of Alice’s Restaurant and walking out. They may think it’s an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in, singin’ a bar of Alice’s Restaurant and walking out. And friends, they may think it’s a movement.
If meta-politics matters as much as both you and I believe, and if the masses, including their supposed “thinking” portion, ultimately fall in line with whatever views hold sway among rulers, then I don’t see that (1) stands to reason. While meta-political credit can fairly be given to men like Rockwell or WLP despite their “failures” (and despite my strong feelings about them) for keeping the flame alight, as it were, they can also be fairly meta-politically criticized for demanding far too much far too soon, for the reason than that their pronouncements did so much to help (negatively) solidify in the public mind just what WN is “all about.” To the extent that Fromm has simply followed in their footsteps I deny him any right at all to claim, on the basis of his experiences, that opponents’ minds absolutely cannot be changed.
There is, it seems to me, a widespread assumption among WNs that because the political ends of WN (or any nationalism) are simple enough to comprehend – a territory peopled and governed by one nation alone – they ought to be similarly simple to desire. When this proves not be so there is a tendency to view the opposition as rabidly, implacably opposed. The point of my remarks above was to question whether this is indeed the case. For it must be noted the leading obstructionists are not merely those who are politically entrenched and who as a result benefit from the maintenance of the anti-white status quo; they are often those who would have a great deal to gain – not lose, gain – from a move towards cultural norms which valued, rather than denigrated, their racial existence, even if such norms sought no further political advancement than this.
That last point is important, and is concordant with your own statements about people contributing as much as think they can to racialist efforts in the present moment. It ought be taken for granted that not all whites will consider something like, let’s call it “ultimate political value,” [UPV] to reside in an all-white USA, across every square inch, stretching from sea to shining sea. If the attainment of such an UPV consists of a series of steps, then those whose views (at least in the present) do not accord with that UPV will not be willing to take even the first step towards its attainment. Since that first step would in all likelihood be indistinguishable from a first step towards a racialist political goal falling far short of the UPV the upshot is that no first step is taken at all. If, as argued, the reason that that first step is not taken rests on the assumption that taking it must or can only lead to the UPV, is it not absurd to then conclude that the opposition is absolutely and implacably opposed to any and all forms of racialism? (Or is it the case that men like Fromm (and so many others besides him) believe that the only form of racialism worthy of the name is one with the UPV in mind?)
I doubt if Fromm wanted his role in life but finding himself in it he has yet to gain the offensive which, of course, is impossible. The odds are two much and with the death of Doug Christie I doubt if he can continue his struggle via the courts. Paul must find a new avenue to win his big UPV idea. Perhaps he will truly plant the North in the NANR? He is big enough.
As you observed, the reestablishment of cultural norms would safeguard the fortune of many a White man but, again, they are too blind to see. I doubt too if most of us less entrenched can survive either. The staus quo is such that the trend looks bleak for us. The UPV of a White continent is an idea as remote to most White people as Antarctica.
Unless an economic deus ex machina appears a great number of ALL races are looking at hard times. On the bright side the the leading obstructionists ……who are politically entrenched will not enjoy the fruits of their “labor.” I can only imagine what their grand children will think of them. But who knows. It’s the not knowing what makes it fun.