← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Ausonius
Thread ID: 10064 | Posts: 43 | Started: 2003-09-26
2003-09-26 21:44 | User Profile
Earlier, I was lamenting the stupidity of a certain girl named Lisa in her wasted and misdirected attmept to form a club called the Caucasian Club (why not just call it the Fightn' Whitey's?), but I hit on a name and a concept that, the more I think about, the more I like.
Why not form a [B]real[/B] group called: [B]The League for the Preservation of European Heritage[/B]? I have no idea how to start one, nor how to spread the word about its' existance, or what to do once we actually have it.. anyone else think that this is doable? The Left, the NAACP, NOW, Greenpeace and any and all other PC multi-culti's out there would have a hard time coming after us for wanting to preserve an ancient heritage. Sort of like using their own tactics against them.. elegant and sure to piss them off something royal. I like it already. Anyone with any ideas, please toss them out here and see if we can get this thing going..
Ausonius
2003-09-26 23:50 | User Profile
I am all for initiating a group of some sort. First we would have to hash out its reason for being, and then a name. [I]The League for the Preservation of European Heritage[/I] sounds like a good first bid. Although I would ask why not call it [I]The League for the Preservation of European People and Heritage[/I]. It would be great fun hashing out party planks and then demands to be laid at the door of the Xenos.
Too bad we don't live in a parliamentarian democracy instead of a one party dictatorship (albeit with two wings) then we could found an actual political party, of course if we lived in a parliamentarian democracy we would already have political parties that we would all be active in.
2003-09-27 02:14 | User Profile
It's reason for being should be obvious to us, but should be carefully laid out to:
1) attract as many people of European descent as possible and [I]keep[/I] them once they join up.
2) Our charter must be worded correctly, so as to deny those who would oppose the concept of a 100% Caucasian group any opportunity to label us 'racist', 'homophobes', 'isolationists' etc etc...
3) It's main goal must be the restoration of this Republic as it was originally envisioned by the Founders. To settle for anything less is spineless, cowardly and traitorous.
4) The core individuals (those who would be contacted by anyone in the media to answer questions about the group) must be well-educated, stable, clean records, solid family people, no bad habits (gambling, porn surfing, drinking to excess), pays the bills on time, etc.. in other words, poster children that the opposition cannot find fault with and that the average Jane or Joe will find much in common with.
5) Must NOT present any overtly militant overtures. The first time someone makes an offhand remark, the press will be all over us like white on rice about us being militant nationalists. Whether we are or not is not important, what IS important is our public image. We [I]must[/I] present an image that we are a bunch of solid people that you would love to have as neighbors, friends, etc.. that way we will win converts and keep them. I expect that there will be much interest in us, and certain groups will attempt to infiltrate us in hopes of finding out the 'real' reason we have formed the League. The original core people must basically keep their mouths shut, don't admit anyone except the other originals and always present that calm, reasonable outward appearance. Personally, I have no wish to use violence against anyone. For all my military training, I'm pretty much a peacenick. As with all soldiers, I fight when I have to, and fight to win, (fighting is only a last resort) but hope that peace and tranquility will prevail.
6) We must screen [I]all[/I] those who wish to be admitted to the League. No Neo-nazi types, no End-Of-The-Worlders, no radical religious types. Christians, yes, solid family folks, yes, the type of people who basically built this country from the ground up. Professionals especially. The more people we get from the hard sciences, the engineers, people in medicine, designers, architects, etc, the more weight our opinion will have. Also, people who have above average intelligence and drive are, for some reason, more resistant to the siren song of the Left. We get more pro's, we get more or less instant respect. No eliteism though, we want regular folks most of all. But if we're populated with only one demographic, we'll alienate ourselves from other demographics. Lawyers and Law Enforcement will carry weight, too. Local LEA is best, people know them by first name, know their families. People inherantly distrust the Feds (and with good reason). Besides, having Lawyers part of The League will come in handy for the inevitable legal action that will come our way.
7) The League must be non-profit.
8) The League must maintain a accurate, public list of which individuals and families are members. If we are secretive, the oposition will certainly allege that we have something to hide, making it easier to discredit us. When we are sufficient in number, we let the legislators know how many we are, and that we don't like what they are doing and that we [I]vote[/I]. Hence the reason for screening our potential members: the more respectable we are, the less the ammo the other side has and no reason for anyone to investigate us.
The original name I came up with was: The League for the Preservation of European Achievement. The it was modified to: The League for the Preservation of European Heritage. I like this best, since the word [I]Heritage[/I] automaticaly includes the people who are decended from European stock. The shorter the name, the easier it is for people to remember. It sounds classy. To make it overly wordy would make it cumbersome. Short and sweet is best. It will be hard for the Left to convince anyone that we are a bunch of gun-toting redneck Klansmen when you have a name like that and are populated by professionals and regular Joes. After all, we're just trying to [I]preserve our heritage so as to make the US a more diverse place. We're just trying to preserve some of the cultural uniqueness of our forefathers, which is just as legitimate as any other group.[/I] See? I have more thoughts on this matter, PM me if you want to hear the rest, as there is no way to screen who comes in here.
Anyway, that's it for now.. it's a start. Maybe not even a good one, since I have never embarked on a project like this in my life and don't know if all this is good or bad. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Perhaps Sertorius can PM some of the long-timers here that are fairly sharp and garner opinions. He knows who is who around here better than I.
Ausonius
2003-09-27 02:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ausonius]
2) Our charter must be worded correctly, so as to deny those who would oppose the concept of a 100% Caucasian group any opportunity to label us 'racist', 'homophobes', 'isolationists' etc etc...
Ausonius[/QUOTE]
Well, that excludes every white nationalist at OD. Oh yeah, we had better shut down the board now or the traditional enemy might find out what we really think!
:whstl:
2003-09-27 03:04 | User Profile
Seriously.. to say that:
You support the nuclear family, solid christian beliefs, oppose revisionist history, support sealing the borders of the US, support jobs for US citizens, support employment and promotion on merit, support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as they were written and encourage white families to have many children is the same as saying:
You're against foreigners coming here on H-1b visas and displacing Americans, against quota hiring and affirmative action, against nebulous interpretations of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, against moral relativism, against socialism, against single parent families (and against radical feminism by default).
You just focus on the positive aspects of it. A rant on a message board is quite far removed from a formal political stance. Besides, if you come off sounding positive, the average Joe is going to want to cowboy up and actually DO something. Focus on the negative, and all you'll get are whiners and complainers. I've gone off on a rant from time to time, but I've been accurate 99% of the time. I come here to vent amongst my own kind. There's a big difference between letting off steam a bit and making policy. I'm no politician, but I know what pisses me off, and if others are the same, it probably pisses them off, too. To assemble these people together to form the nucleus of a new group is the trick we have to pull off.
I'm not a homophobe. I'm afraid of exactly two things in this world: God, and anything happening to my family. Notice that fags and degenerates are not on that list. I dislike them intensely, since I believe they are trying to dismantle the foundations of this Republic through degenerative behavior and political activism.
I am not a 'racist'. I am a separatist. Anytime someone mentions the word 'racist', why does it automatically mean 'white guy who does not like blacks'? What I don't like is their behavior, not them as a people. Their behavior disgusts me. Their (alleged) "music" glorifies the killing of men for sport, the rape and brutalization of women, glorifies criminal behavior, encourages the black youth of this country to emulate them and become criminals and encourages fostering bastard children out of wedlock, then skipping out. And when did I say I wanted to live next door to these people? My problem with blacks would largely evaporate if they quit preaching professional victimization, got up off their asses and actually worked and achieved something, quit fathering bastard children and be there for the ones you have, stop destroying our country through criminal behavior and drug dealing, take responsibility for your life and have a sense of decency and morality about you. Same thing with the border-jumpers. I got no problem with them being here and working so long as they do it legally. Do it like the rest of us did and assimilate into this culture, learn the language and do good things. Jumping the border, engaging in criminal activity and then sending money home is not my idea of a way to become a good neighbor.
"isolationism" has already been shown to be a fallacy that was invented by interventionists to discredit the best and brightest men this country ever had as presidents and they policy that the US operated under from Washington to Wilson.
This CAN be done.
Ausonius
2003-09-27 03:24 | User Profile
What are the value of formal organizations? I had an argument over IM with a friend about this recently. Who is more valuable to racial nationalism slash traditional conservatism - five university professors or five NA isolated members handing out fliers, five high ranking military officers or five perennial protestors? What is more important with regards to accomplishing our goals? Should we join formal organizations, such as the National Alliance, which might entail the possibility of being isolated from mainstream opinion? Should we avoid formal organizations, instead, and try to distort public opinion from within the mainstream?
2003-09-27 03:25 | User Profile
My main concern is preserving the race. I don't want White people to disappear. The foundation for our disappearance is being laid very carefully. I don't particularly care what political system we have so long as it protects the future racial integrity of White people. In the words of Knut Hamsun, I do not want America to become one gigantic stud farm for mulattos and mestizos. You seem to care more about constitutions and traditional political frameworks than you do the continuance of our people's existence in history. Once Whites are mixed out of existence we are gone forever. Political structures are fluid and temporary. Give me a police state, give me socialism, give me liberty, I don't care which so long as our beautiful people continue in history.
Political change through the system aint gonna happen. Our democracy is a complete sham anyway. It is a one party dictatorship with two wings.
I want to appeal to Whites honestly about preserving their own future. I want to raise that ideal in the hearts of our people. If we can do that then we are unstoppable.
We need to demand a section of the country as a seperate republic. Without our own territory we disappear. OUr place in history is non-negotiable.
I am a racist.
2003-09-27 03:45 | User Profile
Bardamu, I'm on the side that believes a political solution is likely not going to occur. It could, but not bloody likely.
There will be a complete collapse. Whites will be suffering the most, at first, because of brainwashing, unwilling to fight, etc. Then things will turn as the situation gets more and more desperate. There will undoubtedly be collapse in the military due to many situations, and the 'troops' will eventually divide along racial lines. To make a long story short, I don't think Whites are going to need a separate portion of this country to call their own. It's going to be brutal and deadly, but Whites will have no choice but to take back all of the country. We've built it, and the third worlders and their handlers can leave or die. That's it. It will happen. I see no way around it. People laugh, but I see the seeds sown every day. Mexico is going to have its population increase rapidly with an influx of returnees, and an influx of 'mexican-Americans' who are no longer welcome. These will be the lucky mestizos. Same goes for other groups. It will be that serious. So be it.
As for the girl trying to start her club. At least it shows their is awarness, at some level, that something is wrong. Things will grow much worse. In the end, that is much better for whites in the long term, and bad for others. The Hell with them.
2003-09-27 04:07 | User Profile
Roy,
I doubt if we will manage to reclaim the whole country. If we reclaimed a third of it, all of Europe, and Australia I will be more than satisfied. Reclaimed, that is, with a racially conscious culture that sets forth from that day forward to safeguard, constitutionally, White people's continued existence.
What we should be doing is preparing as best we can for the coming collapse. We need to instill in the minds of as many Whites as possible the ideas of racial survival.
Strategically we need to hold the moral high ground. This is the only way we can battle the media onslaught that is sure to come after we break through the wall of media silence. A few simple concepts, repeated over and over again. Like: White people must not perish form the face of the earth. Multiculturalism in all White territories will destroy us as a people. We have the right to continue in history. Most of the world's people will sympathize with this creed. It maintains the moral high ground while not hiding from the voodoo term "racist".
2003-09-27 06:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]What we should be doing is preparing as best we can for the coming collapse.[/QUOTE] Many revolutionaries will work to hasten the collapse of a corrupt government. Or at least structure their lives so as not to support it. :batman:
Ausonius, have you seen this web site? [URL=http://www.whitecivilrights.com]European-American Unity And Rights Organization[/URL]
2003-09-27 07:59 | User Profile
There is always the possibility to merge into a pre-existing group if it is believed efforts are being duplicated. Or, to just have alliances with pre-existing groups. I'd like to see less CSA battle flag waving, and more communication of objectives and means of reaching those objectives. It's easy to define what's wrong, but proposing and supporting realistic solutions is not as easy. People tend to prefer protest to actual working to make a situation better. I posted somewhere about the difference between venting frustration and working towards a productive end.
It's like a pesticide application. Some folks think nothing's there if they can't smell it. Some people think nothing's being said if they aren't shouting it, or engaged in something more unusual than an article, book, or interview. Books and the written word have changed the world far more than any argument.
2003-09-27 08:49 | User Profile
A number of great ideas on this thread, so thank you Ausonius and others. This is exactly what this forum was created for, so please keep up the excellent and hopefully fruitful discussion. We enjoy a large percentage of some very keen minds here at OD and I can't help but think that we all benefit when everyone is bringing their respective talents and opinions into the greater dynamic. Right now I see a real need for some legal/organizational expertise as it pertains to establishing such a League or association like Ausonius has mentioned here.
2003-09-27 10:35 | User Profile
Okay, real quick and then I have to go to work.
1) The current state of this Republic is that it is dying. When it finally gets converted to whatever leftist utopian state they want it to be, whites will be oppressed like you wouldn't believe. Eventually, they will be encouraged to leave or they will be stamped out.
2) To ensure than the Republic survives is the same as saying White America will survive.
3) Quality is better than quantity. We get quality numbers, they will grow into something substantial in relatively short time. A mob of malcontents is easily discredited.
4) They're going to come after us, no matter what we do.
5) Formal organizations are invaluable. A leaderless mob is easier to devide and conquer. A people United are not.
6) After the US ceases to be a Republic and bad things start to happen, where do YOU think you're going to live? There has to be some sort of contingency plan for when it happens, otherwise, there will be a power vaccuum. We all know what happens when there is a power vaccuum and nobody to fill it with something good. Having something ready for when it does happen is me just being prudent.
Ausonius
2003-09-27 11:27 | User Profile
Very good, Ausonius. Yep, any organization as mentioned will be catching it from both the opposition and the malcontents it turned away.
Where to live won't be all that much of a problem for most, because many will be killed such as the farmers over in Africa, or imprisoned. There's not much outcry from Bush about that is there? Imagine if the races were reversed...we'd have an Iraq type of invasion, Operation African Freedom and the murderers/oppressors would be dead, jailed, or on the run. The double standard is staggering.
2003-09-28 01:53 | User Profile
Bardamu, All Old Right, Roy Batty, TD, FadeTheButcher...
Okay, here goes an attempt at my reasoning for listing what I feel we have to do and why:
From my chair, the Caucasian population of North America and this Republic are going under. Under the Old Republic, our society flourished, grew strong and we forged the foundations that have provided us with strength and vigor that has allowed us to become the envy of every other nation on earth.
[QUOTE]Give me a police state, give me socialism, give me liberty, I don't care which so long as our beautiful people continue in history. [/QUOTE]
Sorry, but I believe in the old saying: Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. I'm not eager to throw anyone's life away, but I cannot see existing in a police state or in some asshole's idea of a socialist paradise where everyone is equal at the point of a bayonet. Life without dignity, freedom, liberty and justice is not life. It's existing by someone else's permission.
[QUOTE]Strategically we need to hold the moral high ground. This is the only way we can battle the media onslaught that is sure to come after we break through the wall of media silence.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. They're going to come after us with a vengance. They'll be looking for any crack or point they can leverage into a smear story to discredit us. If you read my earlier post, you'll see that the squeaky clean folks are the liasons. We can't toss everyone guilty of looking at 'dirty pitchers' on the internet or whoever smoked a joint in their life, we wouldn't have anyone. I think I'd be out in just under 3 seconds. But what we must present is a wholesome image that will attract people of all walks, pro's included. Like attracts like. And we must conduct ourselves accordingly. Don't talk the talk if you're not willing to walk the walk. My biggest problem with how this country has degenerated is the corrosion of morality. We cannot rewind the clock or jump into a time machine and head off for a simpler time, but we can bring ourselves back into line with regards to what people in this country used to be like. A people built of solid morals, mentally tough, using skeptical thought and reasonably well-educated (there was a story I heard once, that farmers in America used to plow fields with Homer's [I]Odyssey[/I] stuck in their back pocket. Would that it were true today) will be the perfect chassis for building a wonderful society. Kooks, Nazi's, religious zealots, degenerates, Socialists, Communists... these are the ones that we don't need. We've all seen their handiwork firsthand and I, for one, detest what I see. Their kind brought this country low.
I do not want this Republic to implode or collapse. I love it desperately, devoted my life to it for as long as I could, am still willing to lay down my life for the concepts first put forth over 200 years ago. I do not want it to die. What I want is a return to what it used to be, before the rot set in. If it implodes, we must have a Constitution and Bill of Rights (along with a Bill of Responsibilites, I think) to set into place beforehand. We won't have time to think one up if what I think is going to happen actually does. Borrowing heavily from the one we have now [I]as it was originally intended, before do-gooder idiots and traitors started fiddling with it[/I] will provide the majority of material, with one or two small, prudent modifications. Preserving the Caucasian race will go hand in hand with the preservation of the Republic. No more admitting everyone. No more globalism, no more 'multiculturalism'... no more interfering with other sovereign nations. We live in peace and stay out of 'in-house business' of other countries if they consent to do the same for us. Trade when we can for what we need with other countries. I feel no overwhelming desire to rule the world. I do, however, feel an overwhelming desire to live as a free man amongst my own kind without interference from a totalitarian government. Free to own what I want and use it how I wish. Free to speak my mind without fear of repraisal and have my fellow countrymen keep what they earn. Promotion and achievement based on their work ethic, performance, intelligence, leadership and potential, not on whether the Government tells them who they will hire, of what race, how many of which sex or how much they will get paid or they go to jail. No state religion, but encourage the belief in God in schools and universities. Reinstate respect for rule of law. Encourage families staying together, with rewards going to families who have more than 3 children. Private property is inviolate. Do with it as you see fit, but advise property owners of the consequences of their actions. Firearms ownership will be mandatory, as will training in their care and useage and instruction in their use in defense of themselves, loved ones and others (in addition to the consequences of using them recklessly). Both open and concealed carry will not only be encouraged, but required.
If there is an implosion, it WILL be brutal. To organize now, to have our ducks in a row beforehand will pay great dividends later. I mentioned quality over quantity before.. to put it in military parliance, a medium sized group of outstanding individuals are what the military referrs to as 'Force Multipliers'. Small, well trained groups of troops, equipped properly, with excellent morale and motivation are damn near invinceable against any amount of opposition and regularly defeat units many times their size on a regular basis. Mobs of mediocre troops are just target practice. And they know it. To ask 'what's the point of formalized organization?' is to admit defeat.
I said before: This CAN be done. Anything can be done, it just requires the will to do what the other guy won't. Taking and holding the moral high ground cannot be overemphasized. We have to show we are something better than everything else out there. When we get enough numbers, we can start to affect things to our advantage. It may take a very long time.. decades, but what else did you plan on doing with the rest of your life? Saving something worthwhile instead of sitting on your duff watching [I]King of the Hill[/I] and bitching is much better than not doing a damn thing.
Ausonius
2003-09-28 02:21 | User Profile
I believe there should be some form of fitness/sport activities to such groups. After all, we not only want to preserve our culture but want out people healthy as well. There's always been a strong relations between sports and nationalism in many cultures. Here's an article about sports and Irish nationalism [url]http://www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2000/sportsf/s111327.htm[/url]
Many Slavic-American communities sponsor atheltic activities as ways for building up ethnic pride. This is especially true with the Ukrainian Youth Association [url]http://www.cym.org/[/url]
It would also be especially nice for our young to learn about European martial arts [url]http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/4933/westernarts.html[/url] (many of the links here have an interest in preserving our European martial/cultural heritage).
In fact many Asian martial arts instructors advise that one should(if possible) study the fighting arts of their ancestors so as to gain more of a connection with them. Although like anyother training in martial arts, moral development must follow hand in hand(last thing we need are more hooligans on the street).
2003-09-28 02:43 | User Profile
Ausonius: Very good to hear your approach. It's an effective one. If people read any of the guerilla warfare or resistance books, and just a little life experience, you have to get support from a good portion of the populace. And, the target audience doesn't respond well to the tactics used by the left. Besides, do we want to use our immoral enemy as a model of how to run operations?
Edit to comment on Perun1201: Excellent point. I thinking this afternoon how the effort needs to be well-rounded, and fitness is part of overall helth and self defense. I liked Roy Batty's post about boxing lessons. It's not easy to find good instruction in the rural areas. (usually about 1.5-2 hour drive each way to a larger urban area).
2003-09-28 16:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]I believe there should be some form of fitness/sport activities to such groups. [/QUOTE]
I wonder what would happen if we started White boxing clubs with older and younger leagues, male and female leagues. No ideology to start with other than physical fitness and White companionship. In our totalitarian age simply publicizing the [I]White[/I] boxing club would be revolutionary. [I]Why White, what are you RACIST? blah blah blah. [/I] [B]Answer:[/B] [I]All we want is to spend some time together as ethnic [I]White[/I] Americans. [/I] The type of people who would show interest would be the type we would be interested in -- minus the FBI agents, of course. I'm thinking of Fight Club.
The other day I was looking over one of those dating services, checking out the photos and the personal descripts, playing a little game trying to figure out how one would seperate chaff from kernal as in finding racially conscious women to date. It is quite easy actually. You look at their profiles at what groups they are willing to date: tells the whole story. Some will date anybody. Some will date anybody but Blacks. Some will date Blacks and Whites. And some, you guessed it, only date Whites. The same recruiting principle will work for a Fighting Whitey's Club.
2003-09-28 16:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]What are the value of formal organizations? I had an argument over IM with a friend about this recently. Who is more valuable to racial nationalism slash traditional conservatism - five university professors or five NA isolated members handing out fliers, five high ranking military officers or five perennial protestors? What is more important with regards to accomplishing our goals? Should we join formal organizations, such as the National Alliance, which might entail the possibility of being isolated from mainstream opinion? Should we avoid formal organizations, instead, and try to distort public opinion from within the mainstream?[/QUOTE]
Personally I have come to the conclusion that joining the NA is a mistake, and I have given this good thought because I was considering joining. The scenario I played out in my mind was what happens at work when I am confronted with my membership? Can I hold the moral high ground, and the answer was no I couldn't because of those two books Pierce wrote. Pierce is the problem with the NA (May his Soul rest in Valhalla surrounded by beautiful and lustful Valkeries!) His organization is not suited for above ground recruitment and activism, I am sorry to say.
Concerning the question of the general value of organizations versus the value of leaderless resistance cells, I think it is apparent they both have there place in the scheme of things. We should all follow the activities of ELF and ALF for examples of the state of the art of leaderless resistance cells. Leaderless resistance is for civil disobedience. They thwart the snitch culture of the FBI.
So far as organizations go: First of all, obviously, they have to be as law abiding as the Boy Scouts. One of their primary functions is socializing. Meeting souls of a like mind in person, building social support networks, getting [I]off[/I] the net. :bag:
2003-09-29 02:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Personally I have come to the conclusion that joining the NA is a mistake, and I have given this good thought because I was considering joining. The scenario I played out in my mind was what happens at work when I am confronted with my membership? Can I hold the moral high ground, and the answer was no I couldn't because of those two books Pierce wrote.[/QUOTE]
My thoughts exactly. I do not want to be absorbed into another group that I do not agree with 100%. I am tired of compromising away what I believe in. That's how we got here in the first place: By saying: Well, I don't like (fill in the blank) about them or this (fill in another blank) position, but they have the numbers, and I really, [I]really[/I], [B]really[/B] don't like the alternative of this other jerk getting elected, so I'll bide my time and hope for the best. Only problem is that 'best' will never come and 'later' is too late.
Being co-opted by another group who does not and cannot take and hold the moral high groud and [I]stay[/I] there is just asking for trouble. Will they come after us? Yep. Don't be fooled. Anything that the Left does not agree with gets torn to shreds in print and broadcast media. Or ignored or marginalized. Wanting to return to the bedrock principals and morality that this country was founded upon is a noble thing indeed, and it will be very hard for the Left to find a way to attack us without sounding petty. I'm no saint, but I am appalled at the moral condition of our young people, of the alleged 'adults' that attempt to teach those young people what is good and just. I could go into a rant about how everything that has come about is contributing to our fall, but you all already know what they are. Going over them will accomplish little except pissing me off and make y'all think I'm talking down to you. There are a great many intelligent men and women here, and we [I]need[/I] you desperately. Having mobs of semi-literate Sunday-Catholic lemmings is not what we need. If the worst happens (and I pray it does not), who do you think will be needed to rebuild? Joe the Ditchdigger will be needed, and wanted, and will find a welcome place to live with his family in peace, but he may not have the intellectual horsepower needed to put Humpty Dumpty back together the way it was originally intended. All he may know is what is right and wrong and is content to live in peace and be left alone.
We need to hammer out position papers, assemble what resources we can, get out and talk to people, start forming small groups in individual states, [I]get off the Net[/I] and into people's lives. We need so much, it's hard to know where to start. It's like eating an elephant.
Let the FBI come. I have no fear of them, or anyone else. If they want to talk to us, we'll be happy to oblige them. We are doing nothing wrong and we are not advocating violence towards any other group of people. All I want is this Republic returned to what it once was and for me and mine to be left alone to live in peace as a free people. There is nothing wrong with that at all. If I choose to live in a community separate from other ethnic groups, that is my right. If they have a problem with that, go talk to half of Congress and the Senate... they do the very same thing. Matter of fact, the ones who preach 'multicultural' nonsense the most are usually the ones who live in gated whites-only communities and send their kids to private whites-only schools. They don't see the hellholes that communities get turned into by the minorites, the 'refugees', of what little the do-gooders bullshit social engineering programs actually accomplish, other than syphoning money out of the middle class and piss it all away. Hypocritical self rightous condescending S.O.B.'s.
We have to screen potential members as thoroughly as we can... maybe even put folks on a mandatory probation list for a certain period of time. I'm no tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist, but the "G" sending a few feddies or state level LEA types to infiltrate us will probably happen. I'd send a few if I were in their position. Hell, they probably read this site quite frequently. (By the way, Hi from me and mine! :thumbsup: )
Having physical fitness associations is an excellent idea and encouraging participation will build strong minds and bodies. Emphasis on defensive arts: Boxing, wrestling, whatever martial discipline the neophyte wants. There is much crossover, and not only does it promote excellent cardiovascular health, but it builds confindence. Real-life applications must not be overlooked, and neither must team sports. Personal achievement counts for much, but nobody can stand alone.
[QUOTE]Should we join formal organizations, such as the National Alliance, which might entail the possibility of being isolated from mainstream opinion? Should we avoid formal organizations, instead, and try to distort public opinion from within the mainstream?[/QUOTE]
We join nothing.. we form our own. Appeal to the common man, and we will get the numbers we need. Having a formal organization has advantages and disadvantages, but the strongest reason I can think of is legitimacy. Joe Sixpack and Suzy Soccermom won't join up in a group that is so disorganized they cannot even tell who is in charge. Look sharp, act sharp, talk sharp, and folks will recognize you for a legitimate alternative to what they know to be wrong, but cannot put their finger on. We'll accomplish much.
Ausonius
2003-09-29 15:37 | User Profile
I'm glad to see some very good ideas here. Ausonius has been thinking along the same lines as I.
Several points need to be addressed. As Ausonius pointed out, there needs to be a way to filter out the crazies, the costume fetishists and the violent. That means organizational discipline and a way to enforce the core principles. However, that means that your group is therefore going to be a lot smaller than any of the other parties' "big tent" efforts (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as Ausonius pointed out earlier). However, that means the pool of finances is going to be a lot smaller than any other, and keep in mind that a lot of today's White Americans equate having money with being right. That being said, money isn't everything, though it's of course necessary. A lot of the reform-oriented parties, such as the Reform Party and others lose sight of their core message in the quest for numbers and the almighty matching Federal campaign dollars and dissolve into useless, fractious messes that only serve as a nice snack for the media to portray all reform-minded folks as loonies.
Second, we should disabuse ourselves of notions of working directly within the system. The usual suspects own the system and have meticulously and thoroughly blocked all avenues of reform. While a squeaky-clean image and keeping the moral high ground is definitely something to strive for and maintain, we should not fool ourselves into thinking this will give us any kind of cover at all, once the goals of this hypothetical entity are known. Christ himself could be our spokesman and still the press will be given free reign to savage us at will, and we will not be able to answer in kind, lacking a substantial independent media to do so. Basically, if your position doesn't have a televised infographic, the public doesn't consider it worth knowing. If you think that suing for libel would help, remember that "justice" is also enemy-occupied territory. Your case is very likely to be heard in front a judge with a name ending in -stein, -witz, or -berg. The way I see it, we should not operate within the system, but not directly against it either, more like parallel to it and ignoring it as best we can, offering an alternative to the disgruntled White working class. The Jim Giles campaign is an interesting example of something close to what I envision, although I think he may have bitten off too much in trying to gain Federal office right out of the gate. Such office is almost useless to my mind anyway due to the one-party hammerlock on power, though it might serve as a valuable legitimizing tool in the minds of the people, but we shouldn't expect any actual results to accrue; see Ron Paul's voice in the wilderness as an example. Marc Moran entered at the appropriate level, but was sunk by association with publically unsavory VNN, which brings to mind the point that the "good cop-bad cop" routine should also be employed as a political tool.
Finally, and I suspect this is a sticking point with some, Jews must be excluded from the structure. Not in the torches-and-pitchforks, oy vey here-comes-another-poisecution sense, but it nevertheless must be made clear. The Jews have their own power structure here (pretty much all of it), and they needn't be the spoilers for ours. Just look at the AFP and Amren to find out what happens when the tikkuning starts. This may be a problem to the Joe and Suzie crowd, who consider Jews "White" for all intents and purposes, but this is where religion may have a decided worldly utility in addition to its spiritual benefits: as a filter to keep the party Gentile. This is also where the works of MacDonald (I've seen him ridiculed by Jews as "Old MacDonald" the farmer of nursery rhyme. This is all they've got.) come in handy, but we need to make his work accessible to our target demographic, which unfortunately has the attention span 1/4 the length of a music video. See above point about infographics, though of course they won't be televised.
Also, you'll need to coutner rent-a-mob protestors and rock throwing types because even if we aren't violent, the opposition darn sure will be and guess who'll be blamed for any violence there is?
2003-09-29 17:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]I wonder what would happen if we started White boxing clubs with older and younger leagues, male and female leagues. No ideology to start with other than physical fitness and White companionship. In our totalitarian age simply publicizing the [I]White[/I] boxing club would be revolutionary. [I]Why White, what are you RACIST? blah blah blah. [/I] [B]Answer:[/B] [I]All we want is to spend some time together as ethnic [I]White[/I] Americans. [/I] The type of people who would show interest would be the type we would be interested in -- minus the FBI agents, of course. I'm thinking of Fight Club. [/QUOTE]
Well like that one link I posted [url]http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/4933/westernarts.html[/url] is pratically about European martial arts and you'll often find links that talk about preserving our European heritage(without being overtly racist).
Like I said, many Irish, Italian, and Slavic neighborhoods have boxing clubs that seek to promote ethnic pride. So in a way we're simply building on a tradition and practice that already exists in many ways.
2003-09-29 17:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MadScienceType]Finally, and I suspect this is a sticking point with some, Jews must be excluded from the structure. Not in the torches-and-pitchforks, oy vey here-comes-another-poisecution sense, but it nevertheless must be made clear. The Jews have their own power structure here (pretty much all of it), and they needn't be the spoilers for ours. Just look at the AFP and Amren to find out what happens when the tikkuning starts. This may be a problem to the Joe and Suzie crowd, who consider Jews "White" for all intents and purposes, but this is where religion may have a decided worldly utility in addition to its spiritual benefits: as a filter to keep the party Gentile.[/QUOTE]
Excellent comments, MST, but one question concerning your statements I quoted above. Are you suggesting a Christian profession of faith and allegiance type of litmus test for organizational leadership? I can see where this might be a stumbling block for religious practicing jewry, but would it be one for the atheist jew? What about our pagan/agnostic brethren, the best of whom I certainly would not want to exclude? Would they be able to put aside their personal beliefs in service to the greater cause and such a litmus test?
Intriguing questions.
2003-09-29 17:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ausonius]Earlier, I was lamenting the stupidity of a certain girl named Lisa in her wasted and misdirected attmept to form a club called the Caucasian Club (why not just call it the Fightn' Whitey's?), but I hit on a name and a concept that, the more I think about, the more I like.
Why not form a [B]real[/B] group called: [B]The League for the Preservation of European Heritage[/B]? I have no idea how to start one, nor how to spread the word about its' existance, or what to do once we actually have it.. anyone else think that this is doable? The Left, the NAACP, NOW, Greenpeace and any and all other PC multi-culti's out there would have a hard time coming after us for wanting to preserve an ancient heritage. Sort of like using their own tactics against them.. elegant and sure to piss them off something royal.... Ausonius[/QUOTE] Been busy lately, so I'm a little late in jumping on the this thread. It has evolved in an interesting way, concerning general ideas for political activity, etc. I'd like to get back though to the initial premise of your association, regarding the supposed immunity that a purely ethnic name for us, mirroring that of minority organizations would give us.
That part of your thesis is actually rather old, and although sperficially plausible is demonstrably false. How long has it been since David Duke started the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP)? Over 20 years I think. Haven't you read about the furors on college campuses over people that try to found "European Heritage" clubs, etc?
There actually have been "Euro" named organizations. There was an organization once I bookmarked called the "European American Resource Site" ([url]http://www.earsite.org/[/url]) which I found on Free Republic. Of course I had to bookmark it fast because JR deleted the post and banned the poster as soon as he saw it. (Along with everyone else who posted something vaguely un-PC on the thread, including me!)
The rest of the thread conrtains some interesting ideas and discussion, which I'l have to revisit.
2003-09-29 18:55 | User Profile
Are you suggesting a Christian profession of faith and allegiance type of litmus test for organizational leadership?
No, not at all. See below.
I can see where this might be a stumbling block for religious practicing jewry, but would it be one for the atheist jew? What about our pagan/agnostic brethren, the best of whom I certainly would not want to exclude? Would they be able to put aside their personal beliefs in service to the greater cause and such a litmus test?
I certainly do not want to exclude any of our racial kindred based on their beliefs nor ask them put them aside (unless they are overtly destructive such as Satanism or other such nonsense). I really haven't an exact idea how we could use this point, but it occurred to me that since we've been beaten over the head with the "Jews are a religion, not a race" canard for so long, we ought to put that to use and exclude Judiasm in its entirety, and that would include atheist and lapsed Jews as well.
But you're right. Although spirituality is an important part of who we are as a folk, I do not want to overemphasize religion lest we be seen as merely a fringe of Christianity that simply rejects Judiasm.
We should be upfront and not try to disguise a problem we have with a racial/ethnic group as a theological difference, but I was thinking of using whatever tools we have in the toolbox to our best advantage.
It really isn't fair to folks like OldRightLibertarian, but if we go around making exceptions, pretty soon it's a mess and as I said before, Jews have their own power structure where they can be heard, simply by being Jews. It's about time we had the same.
2003-09-29 22:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Frederick William I]It has evolved in an interesting way, concerning general ideas for political activity, etc. [B]I'd like to get back though to the initial premise of your association, regarding the supposed immunity that a purely ethnic name for us, mirroring that of minority organizations would give us.[/B]
That part of your thesis is actually rather old, and although sperficially plausible is demonstrably false. [B]How long has it been since David Duke started the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP)? Over 20 years I think. Haven't you read about the furors on college campuses over people that try to found "European Heritage" clubs, etc?[/B]
There actually have been "Euro" named organizations. There was an organization once I bookmarked called the "European American Resource Site" ([url]http://www.earsite.org/[/url]) which I found on Free Republic. Of course I had to bookmark it fast because JR deleted the post and banned the poster as soon as he saw it. (Along with everyone else who posted something vaguely un-PC on the thread, including me!)
The rest of the thread conrtains some interesting ideas and discussion, which I'l have to revisit.[/QUOTE]
Frederick William I,
I never said that naming such a group would grant us any type of immunity. If you reread what I wrote, all such a name and position would do is buy us time and make it [I]harder[/I] for the Left to find fault in what we're wanting to do. I like to pick my battles, and I'm not about to let the other side have [I]any[/I] advantage if I can help it. Guys like Duke, given their past history, are fair game. Saying my premise is wrong because someone else went about it the wrong way and failed is not an accurate or fair criticism. Naming their organization the NAAWP, in obvious response to the NAACP, given such personal history, made him a target right out of the gate and also made him instantly illigitimate. I still say that using the other side's tactics against them is 1) enjoyable and 2) effective.
Of course I am aware that others have tried to form such ad-hoc groups on campuses in the US, and aware that they have been demonized. So what? They're going to come after us no matter what we do anyway. Nothing will make us immune. If anything, staying (on paper anyway) as neutral as possible, trying to achieve the moral high ground and using their own tactics against them will make them even [I]more[/I] adamant about coming after us. If the local college or university is willing to allow muslims onto campus to celebrate 9/11, and allow the Leftist Student Union a place to enjoy their meetings, they HAVE to allow us a place and leave us alone. Acting professionally, having a well organized structure, staying above the fray and picking our fights will get us more mileage than any disorganized, decentralized ad-hoc grouping ever will. I have made several tentative overtures towards other ex-military, active duty and [I]some[/I] ROTC types, along with a couple of professors (!) I am familiar with and, without exception, their reaction has been: Where to I sign up?
This thing [I]can[/I] be done. It is needed. Now. Saying 'It won't work because others have failed' is admitting defeat before you even try. I'm not about to do that. I'm not for tilting at windmills, either. I'm aware that it will be difficult, but nothing ever worth doing has been easy. If it is done the right way, and built slowly and correctly, it will be hard for the Left to deny that our cause is rightous and will have a tough time making criticisms stick.
Ausonius
2003-09-29 22:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wintermute]The same rule should apply in reverse for our organziations. You can be Christian, Agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist, etc - but no Jews or Muslims. I'd throw CI onto the index prohibitorum as well, but opinions will vary in that regard. If there's an ethnic White who's converted to Islam or Judaism, he or she already has plenty of support groups and organizations. Let him go there. [/QUOTE]
I can certainly live with that, brother, and thanks for jumping in on this excellent thread.
2003-09-30 00:10 | User Profile
Make all new members of this new White group provide a short family tree. Only WHITE people of WHITE race. No half-this or part-that. Wholly White by DNA, on both sides [mother's/father's].
Don't even worry about religion. It's moot.
2003-09-30 01:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ausonius] Guys like Duke, given their past history, are fair game. Saying my premise is wrong because someone else went about it the wrong way and failed is not an accurate or fair criticism. Naming their organization the NAAWP, in obvious response to the NAACP, given such personal history, made him a target right out of the gate and also made him instantly illigitimate. [/QUOTE]
I don't think there is any reason to slander David Duke. What exactly is this "such personal history" that has made him "instantly illigitimate"?
2003-09-30 03:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]I don't think there is any reason to slander David Duke. What exactly is this "such personal history" that has made him "instantly illigitimate"?[/QUOTE]
I have to agree with you here. David Duke did have a past, like I suspect most people that have been active in pro-white organizations have. If you're going to be active and public you quickly find you tend to associate with less than pristine backgrounds and organizations. That's practically the only such organizations out there - unless you want to start from scratch, an associate with only your own people. And those people one has one's own reasons to be suspicious about.
One is seeing a rosy scenario indeed if one really thinks by virtue of a clever name and careful tactics one can avoid slander and guilt by association. If you look around at the organizations surviving today, they've already done that. We have (going from harder line to softer line White organizations) the NA, the NAAWP, the American Nationalist Union, Council of Conservative Citizens, and American Renaissance. They all already pretty much do exactly what I think is being suggested, that is being as careful and as politic as possible consistent with their ideology.
2003-09-30 03:43 | User Profile
***>>>I do not want this Republic to implode or collapse. I love it desperately, devoted my life to it for as long as I could, am still willing to lay down my life for the concepts first put forth over 200 years ago. I do not want it to die. What I want is a return to what it used to be, before the rot set in. If it implodes, we must have a Constitution and Bill of Rights (along with a Bill of Responsibilites, I think) to set into place beforehand. ***
Ausonius, at one time I would have agreed with you. I have now however, taking on a more critical perspective, come to conclusion that the very principles the Old America was founded on, the rationalist theories of the Enlightenment, are the very principles which ultimately undermined the system itself and precipitated its collapse into the society we live in today. First, the Framers of the Constitution simply could not make up their minds. In order to preserve the Union at the Constitutional Convention, they tried to create a "mixed" system of government in which both the states and the federal government shared substantial powers. The Framers were too afraid to resolve the issue, so they intentionally left it ambiguous. This indecisiveness and its resulting confusion, as is typically the case in all of Liberalism, sowed the seeds of the conflict that ultimately was resolved in the disaster that was the Civil War in favor of the national government in which the Federal Government usurped absolute power for itself with the 14th Amendment it imposed upon the states. This constant rationalist thinking in terms of individuals is also one the principal factors that left America permeable to Jewish infiltration. Protected as "citizens" with their "individual rights," Jews were thus perfectly free to rise to predominance in civil society and distort our culture to suit their own tastes and preferences. The proper view of the experiment that was the Constitution and the philosophy upon which it was based is that of a failure, if not a total disaster for our people.
2003-09-30 04:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ausonius]Frederick William I,
I never said that naming such a group would grant us any type of immunity. If you reread what I wrote, all such a name and position would do is buy us time and make it [I]harder[/I] for the Left to find fault in what we're wanting to do. I like to pick my battles, and I'm not about to let the other side have [I]any[/I] advantage if I can help it. Guys like Duke, given their past history, are fair game. Saying my premise is wrong because someone else went about it the wrong way and failed is not an accurate or fair criticism. Naming their organization the NAAWP, in obvious response to the NAACP, given such personal history, made him a target right out of the gate and also made him instantly illigitimate. I still say that using the other side's tactics against them is 1) enjoyable and 2) effective. See my response above re: Duke. In general I agree with your suggestions. However I think as I said there are a number of organizations already out there doing a lot of these things. I'm not really sure re: you're complete confidence that everybody else, who I think tried to do these things "just went about it the wrong way".
Of course I am aware that others have tried to form such ad-hoc groups on campuses in the US, and aware that they have been demonized. So what? They're going to come after us no matter what we do anyway. Nothing will make us immune. If anything, staying (on paper anyway) as neutral as possible, trying to achieve the moral high ground and using their own tactics against them will make them even [I]more[/I] adamant about coming after us. If the local college or university is willing to allow muslims onto campus to celebrate 9/11, and allow the Leftist Student Union a place to enjoy their meetings, they HAVE to allow us a place and leave us alone. Acting professionally, having a well organized structure, staying above the fray and picking our fights will get us more mileage than any disorganized, decentralized ad-hoc grouping ever will. And again, there are organizations that do this, as I discuss. Even the NA, the most hardline group, is quite good about following these rules.
There is a flip side to some of this "staying above the fray" "picking one's fights" and avoiding "disorganized, decentralized ad-hoc groupings". They tend to avoid associating with forums, which tend to have most of these negative qualities. Including this one.
I have made several tentative overtures towards other ex-military, active duty and [I]some[/I] ROTC types, along with a couple of professors (!) I am familiar with and, without exception, their reaction has been: Where to I sign up?
Good. Did you give them our url?
Along these lines this forum at one time had an extensive links page, containing a long list of organizations. Sometime I'm sure we'll get all this code changing stabalized and come up with a good stable links section.
This thing [I]can[/I] be done. It is needed. Now. Saying 'It won't work because others have failed' is admitting defeat before you even try. I'm not about to do that. I'm not for tilting at windmills, either. I'm aware that it will be difficult, but nothing ever worth doing has been easy. If it is done the right way, and built slowly and correctly, it will be hard for the Left to deny that our cause is rightous and will have a tough time making criticisms stick.
Ausonius[/QUOTE]Heh, I'm not trying to bridle your enthusiasm brother. I'm just trying to temper it with a little sanguine wisdom.
Organizations with your principles are good, but like I've said I disagree when you say that necessarily "they've failed", "they've gone about it the wrong way" , etc. Certainly every organization has some things that can be done better, I don't deny that. But to say these things have never been thought of or that starting a new organization from scratch automatically sems to repeat the same mistakes that have already been made, which IMO is the plethera of organizations already existing.
All organizations actually face a couple of tough challenges. The first is ideological. They must be tough enough to be true to their principles, yet clever enough to avoid unnecessary harassment and provocation. This is a fine line. Sometimes so fine it doesn't exist at all. As you note, staying on the high ground makes it even more likely they'll come after us.
I'm not a real activist heavy. Maybe I should be, because I can see that a lot of what is needed I think is less organizational wheel spinning/theorizing and more practical activism, with people using the resources out there to address practical and local issues. If people and organizations would quit nitpicking groups over every little perceived flaw, and use what's out there, there are prefectly enough resources out there to start building some reliable local organizations, organizing call ins to radio stations, demonstrations, etc. that effective organizations do.
2003-09-30 10:39 | User Profile
Okay guys, here we go...
Good. Did you give them our url? [/QUOTE]
Yes, as a matter of fact I did.
Originally Posted by Ausonius Guys like Duke, given their past history, are fair game. Saying my premise is wrong because someone else went about it the wrong way and failed is not an accurate or fair criticism. Naming their organization the NAAWP, in obvious response to the NAACP, given such personal history, made him a target right out of the gate and also made him instantly illigitimate.
I don't think there is any reason to slander David Duke. What exactly is this "such personal history" that has made him "instantly illigitimate"?[/QUOTE]
Okay, given the definition of slander, at what point did I say an untruth about Duke? You accuse me of slander (which is pretty serious, and unlikely, given my reputation around here. I may be lots of things, but I do not slander anyone and I am consistant. The likelyhood of me saying untruths is low. You didn't hear Sertorius saying anything when I ripped Gen Patton to pieces over his actions against the Bonus Army. Because what I said was truth.) Just because you took offense at something I said, does not make it untrue. He went about forming his group the wrong way, his prior associations were not what mainstream America has been spoon fed to be 'politically correct', he was blatant in his hostility towards the establishment, and they had him for lunch. He gave them too much ammo to use against him. That's more than unwise, that's just stupid. I may agree with Duke's personal philosophy, but that does not matter [I]when we consider how he went about forming and attempting to advance his groups agenda[/I].
[QUOTE]Heh, I'm not trying to bridle your enthusiasm brother. I'm just trying to temper it with a little sanguine wisdom.
Organizations with your principles are good, but like I've said I disagree when you say that necessarily "they've failed", "they've gone about it the wrong way" , etc. Certainly every organization has some things that can be done better, I don't deny that. [B]But to say these things have never been thought of or that starting a new organization from scratch automatically sems to repeat the same mistakes that have already been made, which IMO is the plethera of organizations already existing.[/B]
[B]All organizations actually face a couple of tough challenges. The first is ideological. They must be tough enough to be true to their principles, yet clever enough to avoid unnecessary harassment and provocation. This is a fine line. Sometimes so fine it doesn't exist at all. As you note, staying on the high ground makes it even more likely they'll come after us.[/B]
I'm not a real activist heavy. Maybe I should be, because I can see that a lot of what is needed I think is less organizational wheel spinning/theorizing and more practical activism, with people using the resources out there to address practical and local issues. If people and organizations would quit nitpicking groups over every little perceived flaw, and use what's out there, there are prefectly enough resources out there to start building some reliable local organizations, organizing call ins to radio stations, demonstrations, etc. that effective organizations do.[/QUOTE]
Two things: At what point did I say that I thought this thing would be a cakewalk? I'm not 20, I'm 36. After 10 years of stomping around the globe, I am world weary. I am aware of what will come our way. I am [I]tired of compromising away what I believe in [/I]by allying myself with other groups because they have the numbers. I bailed on the Catholic Church and converted to Lutheranism, I bailed on the Republicans long ago and have fumbled about looking for a group that believes what I believe in (you'll notice that the Neo-Nazi numerical mystacists are not in there). I'm still looking. The other is: I use what you use against me against the socialists and communists on a daily basis, to wit: [I]This is a workable idea, it just hasn't been tried by ME yet[/I]. I see what others have done, see their mistakes, see how the Left operates and want to use their tactics against them. Anything wrong with that? Trying and failing is honorable. Not trying and just bitching about how crappy and unfair things are is worthless.
[QUOTE]One is seeing a rosy scenario indeed if one really thinks by virtue of a clever name and careful tactics one can avoid slander and guilt by association. If you look around at the organizations surviving today, they've already done that. We have (going from harder line to softer line White organizations) the NA, the NAAWP, the American Nationalist Union, Council of Conservative Citizens, and American Renaissance. They all already pretty much do exactly what I think is being suggested, that is being as careful and as politic as possible consistent with their ideology.[/QUOTE]
Geesh, when did you guys get so jaded? And I thought I was a pessimist.
[QUOTE]at one time I would have agreed with you. I have now however, taking on a more critical perspective, come to conclusion that the very principles the Old America was founded on, the rationalist theories of the Enlightenment, are the very principles which ultimately undermined the system itself and precipitated its collapse into the society we live in today. First, the Framers of the Constitution simply could not make up their minds. In order to preserve the Union at the Constitutional Convention, they tried to create a "mixed" system of government in which both the states and the federal government shared substantial powers. The Framers were too afraid to resolve the issue, so they intentionally left it ambiguous. This indecisiveness and its resulting confusion, as is typically the case in all of Liberalism, sowed the seeds of the conflict that ultimately was resolved in the disaster that was the Civil War in favor of the national government in which the Federal Government usurped absolute power for itself with the 14th Amendment it imposed upon the states. [/QUOTE]
Fade, see my remarks re: Constitution and a few minor adjustments.. also "Bill of Responsibilities" that goes with "Bill of Rights".
I never said that this idea of mine is, or was, new. What started all this was my lamenting a certain girl named Lisa (damn her! :) ) and her stupidity and naivete (I think I spelled that right.. no matter). I thougth up a few 'what if's' and tossed them out here for you all to opine on. Except for that slander thing, there are a lot of excellent views here, and I appreciate the various points of views and opinions. You all might have dented my fenders (with regards to enthusiasm and motivation), but I still think that this thing can be done. If the coming implosion actually happens (and I think it will), having nothing in place to take up the vaccuum is just whistling past the graveyard. There [I]has[/I] to be something there, or what comes after will make us all wish for the halcyon days of 'multiculturalism'.
Success is having the will to do what the other guy won't.
Ausonius
2003-09-30 12:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ausonius]
Okay, given the definition of slander, at what point did I say an untruth about Duke?
[/QUOTE]
The slander was by innuendo:
[I]I never said that naming such a group would grant us any type of immunity. If you reread what I wrote, all such a name and position would do is buy us time and make it harder for the Left to find fault in what we're wanting to do. I like to pick my battles, and I'm not about to let the other side have any advantage if I can help it. Guys like Duke, [B]given their past history[/B], are fair game. Saying my premise is wrong because someone else went about it the wrong way and failed is not an accurate or fair criticism. Naming their organization the NAAWP, in obvious response to the NAACP, [B]given such personal history [/B] made him a target right out of the gate and also [B]made him instantly illigitimate. [/B] I still say that using the other side's tactics against them is 1) enjoyable and 2) effective.[/I]
Then I asked you to specify what exactly David Duke's [I]past history[/I] was?
And now you are backpedaling. Why don't you simply lay your cards on the table and say the word Klan?
Because I agree that the problem with Duke is the Klan, and this is because of the billions of dollars of negative brainwashing the industrial media complex has instilled in the minds of the populace. It is a problem. What I am saying is there is no reason to take up the cudgel and bash Duke as if he is a culprit of some sort, which he is not.
2003-09-30 14:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ausonius]Geesh, when did you guys get so jaded? And I thought I was a pessimist.[/QUOTE]
Tell me about it. Fred just threw a wet blanket on the little spark of optimism I was starting to receive from this thread. :twisted: :angry:
However, I'm a firm believer in 'workable ideas that just haven't been tried by me yet.' That's the very reason I started this board in the first place.
2003-09-30 16:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ausonius]Okay guys, here we go...
Okay, given the definition of slander, at what point did I say an untruth about Duke? You accuse me of slander (which is pretty serious, and unlikely, given my reputation around here. I may be lots of things, but I do not slander anyone and I am consistant. The likelyhood of me saying untruths is low. You didn't hear Sertorius saying anything when I ripped Gen Patton to pieces over his actions against the Bonus Army. Because what I said was truth.) Just because you took offense at something I said, does not make it untrue. He went about forming his group the wrong way, his prior associations were not what mainstream America has been spoon fed to be 'politically correct', he was blatant in his hostility towards the establishment, and they had him for lunch. He gave them too much ammo to use against him. That's more than unwise, that's just stupid. I may agree with Duke's personal philosophy, but that does not matter [I]when we consider how he went about forming and attempting to advance his groups agenda[/I].
I don't think Bardamu was accussing you of slander at all. All I think he was trying to do was get you to be more realistic, and in tune with the real world.
Look what Duke's background was and who he had associated with. Now look at the backgrounds of some of the people on this board.
Look at the allegedly stupid things Duke said that the press jumped all over. Now look at some of the things that are said on this board.
Now everybody makes mistakes, and we all know David has made his share. It's good to try to avoid them. But you need to be realistic.
Two things: At what point did I say that I thought this thing would be a cakewalk? I'm not 20, I'm 36. [I]This is a workable idea, it just hasn't been tried by ME yet[/I]. I see what others have done, see their mistakes, see how the Left operates and want to use their tactics against them. Anything wrong with that? Trying and failing is honorable. Not trying and just bitching about how crappy and unfair things are is worthless.
Hey, I'm the last person to want to quash enthusiasm. I'm just trying to get you to be realistic. You said others have made mistakes, and you'd like to show them how it should be done. And I say you might be able to do better in your analysis of what the mistakes were. Don't get too bitchy yourself of accussing us of just bitching about how crappy and unfair things are. ;)
One is seeing a rosy scenario indeed if one really thinks by virtue of a clever name and careful tactics one can avoid slander and guilt by association. If you look around at the organizations surviving today, they've already done that. We have (going from harder line to softer line White organizations) the NA, the NAAWP, the American Nationalist Union, Council of Conservative Citizens, and American Renaissance. They all already pretty much do exactly what I think is being suggested, that is being as careful and as politic as possible consistent with their ideology.*
Geesh, when did you guys get so jaded? And I thought I was a pessimist. Since when am I being jaded? All I'm pointing out is there are a lot of good resources out there, and lot of good people who've tried to do what you're/we're thinking doing. Rather than start from scratch, it would be much better and easier if we could get them involved someway and make use of their experiences, resources, knowledge and abilities.
Of course that isn't easy always. However you at least need, if you're going to start on your own, look closely at what they did so you can learn from their successes and avoid their failures.
And you need to be willing to be specific, and not automatically get defensive when we ask you to clarify and expand on some of your points. Hey we're on your side, we just want to make sure you've thought things out. Keep your chin up. ;)
Except for that slander thing, there are a lot of excellent views here, and I appreciate the various points of views and opinions. You all might have dented my fenders (with regards to enthusiasm and motivation), but I still think that this thing can be done. If the coming implosion actually happens (and I think it will), having nothing in place to take up the vaccuum is just whistling past the graveyard. There [I]has[/I] to be something there, or what comes after will make us all wish for the halcyon days of 'multiculturalism'.
Success is having the will to do what the other guy won't.
Ausonius[/QUOTE] Enthusiasm, motivation, and will are all important. Don't let me quench that. But its not sound motivation to create enthuisiam by underestimating the difficulties or being unduly negative about the abilities/capabilities of your competitors.
This board has had I think quite a few realistic successes which we can build on. Organizations like the Council of Conservative Citizens are good at some things, but some things they aren't good at. Like cyber-activism. And running a forum isn't easy for anyone. Many don't try at all, like Vdare and CoCC, others try with much greater resources than we and don't seem to do that much better, like American Renaissance.
Eventually if you think you have the answers, and others aren't doing the job properly, you just have to step out on your own. But first I like to see if you can get as much help from the others as you can. That's one thing I think there's still a lot we can do of before we move on to some of the other things that a regular organization like CoCC etc does.
2003-09-30 16:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Tell me about it. Fred just threw a wet blanket on the little spark of optimism I was starting to receive from this thread. :twisted: :angry:
However, I'm a firm believer in 'workable ideas that just haven't been tried by me yet.' That's the very reason I started this board in the first place.[/QUOTE]
And you've demonstrated indeed that you can indeed get things done. When I first started here, the Sam Francis forum, prominently linked to the Sam Francis's web page appeared to be going gangbusters, and even Free Republic still tolerated cautiously worded paleo criticisms. We all found out the limitations here. So in spite of the extra work, I agree there could be some good arguments made for new organizations and doing things our own way.
We do still want to take a good look at things around us though. Getting the cooperation of other was crucial in starting this forum. It was nice for instance that Sam Francis gave a months notice - most forums prefer to shut down immediately. And getting the eventual cooperation of Polinco has been a big help too (not to forget the doubts initially, when right when we were deciding what to do, OD went down ;) )
That's why while we know the mistakes out there, it doesn't necessarily do to take big swings at everybody out there. Everybody in this makes mistakes, and we'll make them too. But you're right, its important to just keep plugging away.
2003-09-30 21:42 | User Profile
Want a reason what I haven 't joined the c of CC? Does C of CC support the GOP? I thought they did. I don't consider that a small discrepancy. I saw a pic with Bob Barr, and now Haley Barbour and C of CC leaders. :taz:
Edit: Let me clarify to say that C of CC looks like a great group, with a decent approach. I just can't see myself in a group to cohorts with Trent Lott, Bob Barr, and Haley Barbour. Next, I'll be hearing most members are voting for a Bush reelection.
2003-09-30 22:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]Want a reason what I haven 't joined the c of CC? Does C of CC support the GOP? I thought they did. I don't consider that a small discrepancy. I saw a pic with Bob Barr, and now Haley Barbour and C of CC leaders. :taz:
Edit: Let me clarify to say that C of CC looks like a great group, with a decent approach. I just can't see myself in a group to cohorts with Trent Lott, Bob Barr, and Haley Barbour. Next, I'll be hearing most members are voting for a Bush reelection.[/QUOTE]Hey, give me a break! Bob Barr is one of the good guys. And even Trent Lott don't forget, has the honor of being kicked out of the Senate for being un-PC, even though he is a spineless oaf.
The CoCC, just because it had a picture taken with the GOP doesn't mean they are "controlled" by them. Sheesh
2003-10-01 01:23 | User Profile
Okay, here's the latest on what I have been batting around in my little pea brain:
With regards to the whole Duke thing: At great risk of letting this thread go off-topic, I will say that I do not back down or back up when I believe I am right. I give everyone a fair shake, even Polish Noble. I am fair. I do not backpedal. Stating the obvious about Mr. Duke, whether I agree with him or not, is not slander. He screwed up. It's that simple. We all do.
[QUOTE]Because I agree that the problem with Duke is the Klan, and this is because of the billions of dollars of negative brainwashing the industrial media complex has instilled in the minds of the populace. It is a problem. What I am saying is there is no reason to take up the cudgel and bash Duke as if he is a culprit of some sort, which he is not.[/QUOTE]
I think I said that earlier in another way. I don't agree with the Klan. I only want to associate with my kinsmen and be left alone. I wasn't bashing Duke in any fashion. Just illustrating the obvious. As far as I'm concerned, the Duke thing is sidelined and over with.
Being realistic: I am enthusaistic, motivated and convinced of the righteousness of what we are doing (or, hopefully, going to do). I have already admitted here:
[QUOTE]I have no idea how to start one, nor how to spread the word about its' existance, or what to do once we actually have it.. [/QUOTE]
that I have only the vaguest idea of how to go about establishing a political group. But what I [I]do[/I] know is tactics and human nature. I can draw on the experiences of those who came before us and use that to our advantage. I can observe how the other side does things and use them against them. We all have strengths and weaknesses. I know mine. This is the very reason we need so many people. I said before in other posts in this thread that I don't have all the answers, and I meant it, which is the whole point of me tossing this out here and seeing what you all think. There were many good ideas and issues raised with regards to obstacles and what others have done before us, and undoubtedly there will be more. If this thing is to get off the ground, out of the 'what if' stage, we have to put pen to paper. If I have to do it by myself, I will, and I will likely fail, since I don't know what the hell I'm doing and I'll get torn to bits. But at least I will have tried. It will need more help and resources than I can give it.
[QUOTE]You said others have made mistakes, [I]and you'd like to show them how it should be done[/I]. And I say you might be able to do better in your analysis of what the mistakes were. Don't get too bitchy yourself of accussing us of just bitching about how crappy and unfair things are. ;)[/QUOTE]
Yeah, okay.. I guess I did get a bit high-handed. I can deal with constructive criticism just fine, so long as it's an accurate assesment. It's just that 'others have gone down in flames, and so will you' mantra I keep hearing. But still, the way I see it, we can keep railing at the wrongs in this country in this forum, or we can do something about it. I don't agree with the other groups out there for one reason or another, so what's the harm in starting another? If it is destined to fail, so be it. But at least we did something.
(I'll let you guys in on a little secret: Other than being a member of the NRA, I have no group affiliations whatsoever. I don't drink, don't whore around, don't gamble, don't speed, don't blow my money on stupid shit. I smoke sometimes, but I have never even gotten so much as a parking ticket. I'm pretty boring. I do, however have a great love of fine rifles and go to the range quite regularly to keep my skills up. I am officially, a nobody.)
Ausonius
2003-10-01 01:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ausonius]Stating the obvious about Mr. Duke, whether I agree with him or not, is not slander. He screwed up. It's that simple. We all do. [/QUOTE]
Except you have never explained exactly what it is Mr. Duke did. I think you don't know anything about him. Okay. End of the Duke thing.
2003-10-01 01:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Except you have never explained exactly what it is Mr. Duke did. I think you don't know anything about him. Okay. End of the Duke thing.[/QUOTE]
Aw, now that's not fair... firing a broadside and then ending the conversation. Not sporting at all, old chap. :lol:
We can discuss Mr. Duke at a later time on another thread, this ain't over :boxing: ...
Ausonius
2003-10-01 02:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ausonius]Aw, now that's not fair... firing a broadside and then ending the conversation.
Ausonius[/QUOTE]
Well heck, I thought that was the way you wanted it:
[QUOTE=Ausonius] As far as I'm concerned, the Duke thing is sidelined and over with.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, another thread another time. I recommend Duke's book My Awakening. The pages turn themselves.