← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hilaire Belloc
Thread ID: 10378 | Posts: 32 | Started: 2003-10-09
2003-10-09 20:16 | User Profile
What is sickening is that this article is from Pat Buchanan's American Conservative Magazine.
** [url]http://www.amconmag.com/10_06_03/feature.html[/url]
Zionism: A Defense
A prominent conservative argues that cultural and political kinship make Israel the West’s natural ally.
By Peter Hitchens
Conservatives should support the State of Israel on principle, just as the globalist Left seeks to defeat Zionism on principle. The legions of political correctness would usually approve of a state founded as the result of a classic “national liberation” struggle against a classic “colonial oppressor” and ought to endorse a country so profoundly secular in so many of its institutions and so dominated by social-democratic political and cultural thinking. Especially, they should be enthusiastic about a nation whose whole reason for existence is profoundly anti-racist.
But they don’t and they aren’t. The Left will readily forgive Irish Republicans for terror and even for Catholicism. They remain sentimental about Fidel Castro despite the show trials and the dungeons. They will pardon South Africa almost everything, including an incorrect attitude towards AIDS. But all the categories flip over and upside down when it comes to Israel and Zionism. Why? Here are some suggestions, offered in the spirit of inquiry.
Despite its socialist appearance—kibbutzes, female soldiers, and the rest—Zionism is a profoundly conservative idea, based on the re-creation of an ancient nation and culture. It is also globally conservative, requiring a definite and uncompromising form of national sovereignty and an implicit rejection of multiculturalism. Israel stands—alone in its region—for placing the rule of law above the rule of power. Its destruction would be a disaster for what remains of the civilized world. Yet it has never been so threatened.
The recent Iraq war has done substantial damage to Israel’s hopes of survival, damage that was implicit in the pro-war case from the start. Those Zionists who supported the war made a serious mistake. The marketers of political and diplomatic cliché have expressed surprise that George W. Bush fulfilled his earlier pledge to pursue the road map to peace. How wrong they were. Even as the doomed Abu Mazen is carted off the stage in a bruised heap, the absurd effort to find a Palestinian Authority chieftain who both has any power and believes in compromise continues. If they had been paying attention, they would have realized that the globalist faction in the Republican Party has for many years been ready to sacrifice Israel in return for a settlement with the Muslim world.
It is strange how few have put together the two most frightening events of the year 2001, even though they took place within days of each other. The first was the Durban conference of the United Nations, supposedly “against racism.” The Muslim world chose to turn this gathering into a scream of hatred against Israel and against its protector America, so much so that the U.S. and Israeli delegations walked out. Just a few days later came the attack of Sept. 11. It has always interested me that this event was swiftly followed by, of all things, the payment of America’s back dues to the UN and the first open White House declaration of support for a Palestinian state. The War on Terror was strangely irrelevant to what had actually happened, with its clumsy ill-directed blows against Afghanistan and Iraq and its embarrassed refusal to confront Saudi involvement in terror or notice Palestinian street celebrations of the Manhattan massacre.
The alteration in policy towards Israel and the amazing pressure that must have been put on Ariel Sharon to swap his mailed club for an olive branch are by contrast real, accurately directed, and vastly significant. The trouble is, they are acts of appeasement rather than of resolution. This is serious, and if Washington is wrong (as I believe it is) about the Palestinian cause’s real capacity for compromise, it will turn out to be a grave step towards the dissolution of the Israeli state—not by frontal military action but by demoralization, destabilization, and de-legitimization.
The Israeli state has many flaws that only a fool would deny. Terrorists, still not fully disowned and in some cases actually revered, were prominent in its establishment and then in its governing class. It has engaged in pre-emptive war and has driven people from their homes through fear and massacre. Some of its responses to terrorist attack have been clumsy, lazy, and incompetent. Its present Prime Minister is severely tainted by indefensibly ruthless and inhumane past actions. Its political system is designed to enthrone factions, some of them repellent. The most important fault of all is that Israel should never have been founded, and should never have needed to be founded. But this last fault is an involuntary one, and is the reason for many of the country’s other troubles. It is no good blaming Israel for existing when its foundation was a desperate response to mechanized racial murder. Nor is it any good for supporters or opponents of modern Israel to pretend that the National Socialist massacre of Jews did not change the argument about Zionism for as far ahead as it is possible to look.
If the world were as liberal idealists imagine, Zionism ought to have been forgotten long ago as a foolish idea, a cranky and hopeless project as unrealistic as Esperanto. And if mankind were ruled by reason, then Zionism would indeed have gone the way of Esperanto. You might have thought that secularism, by making Judaism a matter of involuntary race rather than one of voluntary religion, would have resulted in near-total integration and assimilation. This did not happen. The opposite did. It is therefore important to remember that most right-thinking people believed with utter certainty that assimilation would happen and Zionism would fail. They believed this, during the years before 1914, in a period of history similar to our own because of its illusory stability and its materialist optimism. They continued to believe it in an era similar to the one we are just entering, the years of nervous anticipation and fear of war between 1918 and 1939.
The projected “National Home for the Jews” endorsed by Britain in 1917 was never intended to become a nation. It was to be part of the British Empire, not ruling itself but governed benignly from London, a permanent way station on the proposed land-route to India and a glacis protecting the Suez Canal from any power that threatened it from the north. The British Empire accepted the Zionist scheme because it provided Britain with an excuse to straddle one of the most important pieces of strategic property in the world.
This arrangement would have safeguarded the Arab peoples already living in the neglected Ottoman sanjaks that were arbitrarily glued together to form the Palestine Mandate, an entity even more artificial than Iraq. Under British government, Arabs were not given the right to rule Jews, and Jews were not given the right to rule Arabs.
When the idea was first put forward, there was plenty of room for both peoples within wide frontiers. For at that stage nobody had planned to set up the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which first came to birth as the Emirate of Transjordan, hacked in a hurry out of the original Mandate. This was another accident along the way, following the diplomatic game of pass-the-parcel, which began when the French ejected the British client “King” Faisal from Syria in July 1920. They had won the territory at the peace conference and did not share T.E. Lawrence’s enthusiasm for Hashemite chieftains.
To console Faisal, London gave him the throne of Iraq instead, inaugurating another permanent crisis. This displaced his brother Abdullah, who had originally been promised the Baghdad throne. Abdullah, a monarch with no realm, urgently needed another kingdom to reign over. He complained noisily and was given Transjordan to soothe his wounded feelings. Thus three-quarters of the original Palestine Mandate, the entire area east of the river Jordan, was snatched away from the projected “National Home” before it had even begun. The famous West Bank was seized illegally by Transjordan in 1948, allowing that country to change its name to Jordan. So when Israel occupied it in 1967, it merely passed from one illegal occupier to another. Though it is not widely known, this very area was originally designated for “close Jewish settlement” at the San Remo Accords, which defined the original Mandate and which remain the only agreed international document defining sovereignty over this territory. Even the Golan Heights, now claimed righteously by Syria, were originally within the Mandate and became part of Syria in later Anglo-French horse-trading.
There is a general assumption that Israel at some point stole its territory from a legitimate Arab state. Many of Israel’s critics seem to believe that there was at one stage a sovereign country called “Palestine” out of which the Jewish nation was unfairly carved. But no such country ever existed; Palestine was never the name of anything but a Roman province. The only previous title—for so many centuries that it had no real rival claimant—had belonged to the Ottoman Empire. From the Ottomans it passed directly to the British. When Britain, bankrupt and demoralized, scuttled from the region in 1948, Israel grabbed as much as it could of this dubious legacy. Arab armies in turn seized as much as they could.
Israelis unquestionably perpetrated unforgivable massacres and drove people from their homes. Had things gone the other way, there would have been other massacres, other refugees. Wilsonian ideals of national self-determination can take on a blood-stained tinge, just as much as imperialism, if not more so. When a colonial power vacates a disputed territory, such horrors are likely. But this was in 1948, a year after the partition of India and Pakistan, another shameful scuttle by Britain. All the refugees from that vast upheaval have found new homes. It also came shortly after the expulsion of millions of Germans from East Prussia, the Czech lands, and from Western Poland. Those dispossessed in these savage deportations have long since resettled, and no serious movement demands their return home. Why, uniquely, are the Arab refugees of 1948 still the focus of international demands for the restoration of lost lands?
There is one key difference that keeps this issue alive, especially on the Left, which mostly has not even heard of the German expulsions and would probably defend them if it had. Israel is not like other countries because it is a Western nation carved out of Middle Eastern territory. This leads us to the uncomfortable truth—unwelcome to modern Zionists who shudder visibly at any mention of the word—that Israel is the last major European imperial colony on the face of the earth. In its struggle for survival in a world that already has enough reasons for disapproving of it, modern Israel has sought to stifle such thoughts.
But a European colony it is. What distinguishes Israel from its Arab neighbors is no longer its general prosperity and physical modernity. Oil has evened up these differences in the past decade, and, while serious squalor persists in many Arab countries, so do middle-class comfort and good, functioning services. The difference runs much deeper. Israel’s people are European by culture and law, imposing that culture and law on a region where cousin marriage and tribal loyalty are normal, while pluralism, tolerance, party politics, and the rule of law are abnormal. In this, the new state is the direct heir of the British officers who governed the area as undisguised colonists between the two global wars—and from whom it has inherited much of its legal system, not to mention a chain of imperial fortresses still used by the Israeli army.
This makes Israel the permanent ally, in the Middle East, of the world’s lawful and free countries. This alliance is based on cultural and political kinship, factors that cannot be altered by a tyrant’s death or a coup d’état. Washington may be able to buy the friendship of one Arab or Muslim regime or another with arms and cash. But as soon as that regime falls, the investment of years is wasted if the new rulers are hostile.
I suspect this difference, far more than the ethnic and religious ones, arouses the hostility of Arab regimes. We do not really know what the Arab and Muslim peoples think, since such states do not have free public opinion as we know it. We do know that an ugly anti-Semitism previously largely unknown in the Middle East, has been deliberately and crudely encouraged by Arab regimes trying to find an outlet for the justified discontents of their own poor. We also know that there has been no desire for permanent compromise and genuine peace between even the supposedly moderate Arab regimes and Israel. The state of relations between Israel and Egypt, for instance, is frigid, nervous, and held in place mainly by American subsidies, and this despite Israel’s handover of territory of enormous strategic value. In fact, the Israeli-Egypt “peace,” artificial and without friendship between governments or peoples, is a standing warning to those who fantasize about a “new Middle East” or a harmonious two-state solution.
The hostility is bitter, kept alive by semi-official and official media and, in a nasty new development, it is now often crudely racialist, though nobody is supposed to mention this. The Western Left would drive a Holocaust-denier from any campus that employed him, but the thought police who search the minds of their domestic opponents are unmoved by the blatant anti-Semitism of the Arab terror organizations. Many who denounce Islam for its intolerance draw back from this condemnation when that intolerance is directed against Zionists. By a peculiar process of mental dishonesty so outrageous that it works, Zionism is often equated directly with German National Socialism by critics of Israel. The only reason for this absurd, disproportionate, and cynical claim is that it neutralizes the fundamental case for Zionism, namely that Germany’s policy of systematic massacre was unique, and that the Jewish case for a Jewish sovereign state is therefore unique.
Conservatism is realistic, honest, consistent, and opposed to cant. It takes the side of the particular and the ancient. It sees virtues in Western civilization against its rivals. It penetrates the disguises in which history advances itself and is not fooled by passing appearances. It does not seek perfection, but it does try to be principled. On all these grounds, and because that country is threatened as never before by shallow and ill-considered idealism, conservatism should consider Israel an ally.
**
2003-10-09 23:02 | User Profile
Perun,
I agree with you.
Pat and Taki would do well not to waste paper on articles by Derbyshire and this one. I'd rather they give the space to Sobran.
I didn't even bother to read this article. I can get enough of that crap from the Weekly Standard.
2003-10-10 06:40 | User Profile
So glad I dumped my TAC subscription and give my money to Joe Sobran, American Free Press, and Middle American News now instead.
This article reinforces my belief that I did the right thing.
2003-10-10 22:13 | User Profile
[COLOR=Red][SIZE=5]"Peace between Moslem and Christian was a century-old fact until ended by the acts of the Truman administration on behalf of 'Israel.'" -- author/former military intelligence officer John Beaty, from his book "The Iron Curtain Over America," 1951, reprinted 1995; CPA Books, USA, p. 211, softcover.[/SIZE][/COLOR]
So much for Izweal being our "natural ally."
2003-10-11 20:23 | User Profile
So much incorrect information in this article. What made Buchanan decide to post it? Is he being threatened by violence or financial troubles? Is he now actually believing what is in that article? Or did he post this article because he was being too truthful about Jews and realized that to be effective, he needs to "cool off" a bit before continuing once again on the path of truth? When Pat posted the review of MacDonald, did he actually believe what MacDonald said, but didn't want to seem too "anti-semetic" so he posted the anti-MacDonald review simply for the sake of giving exposure to MacDonald while at the same time pretending to be against MaDonald? Maybe he was hoping that giving exposer to MacDonald would get all his readers to buy his books and read them and see for themselves that MacDonald was actually right? I am more interested in the actual reasons of why people do what they do, instead of just breaking down into an angry fit and bombarding people with name-calling.
[QUOTE]just as the globalist Left seeks to defeat Zionism on principle. [/QUOTE]
Actually, the American Left elites support Zionism. It's the non-American ultra-Liberal elites that oppose it.
[QUOTE]The legions of political correctness would usually approve of a state founded as the result of a classic ââ¬Ånational liberationââ¬Â struggle against a classic ââ¬Åcolonial oppressorââ¬Â and ought to endorse a country so profoundly secular in so many of its institutions and so dominated by social-democratic political and cultural thinking. [/QUOTE]
First, let's define "political incorrectness." This is a relative term, meaning taking any stance anathema to mainstream beliefs of people living in a particular time. In early American history, it was considered "politically incorrect" to be pro-Jewish or support Black equality. Today, it's just the opposite. People use the word "political incorrectness" as if it's an absolute term, but it is not. The author of this article seems to be guilty of this logical mistake. Then he incorrect when he claims that supporting Jews is politically incorrect, when in fact, since most Americans are for the Jews, it would be politically incorrect to actually oppose them or oppose Zionism, since the definition of "political incorrectness" is to support ideas anathema to mainstream belief of a specific time period.
[QUOTE]Especially, they should be enthusiastic about a nation whose whole reason for existence is profoundly anti-racist.[/QUOTE]Is he actually that ignorant or is he intentionally lying for whatever reason? Facts clearly show that Israel is a "racist" state, by our current defintion of "racist."
[QUOTE]Israel standsââ¬âalone in its regionââ¬âfor placing the rule of law above the rule of power.[/QUOTE]
Again, is he really this ignorant, or is he lying? Their is ample proof that Israeli elites often break the laws to manipulate the average Jews into supporting Zionist policies.
[QUOTE]Even as the doomed Abu Mazen is carted off the stage in a bruised heap, the absurd effort to find a Palestinian Authority chieftain who both has any power and believes in compromise continues.[/QUOTE]
Since Palestine is under Jewish occupation, why should it be proper for Palestine to compromise, when the ethical act would be for Israel to go back to the previous borders and pay massive restitution to the Palestinians for all the crimes they have committed against them? Is the author of this article Jewish, a pathological White elite, or someone who is extremely ignorant of the facts?
[QUOTE]If they had been paying attention, they would have realized that the globalist faction in the Republican Party [/QUOTE]
So anyone who supports Muslim nations is "globalist" while anyone who supports Israel is "non-globalist?" In either case, you are a globalist because you are fighting for a non-American country. Is the auther intentionally using deception here, or is his reasoning skills just poor?
[QUOTE]The Muslim world chose to turn this gathering into a scream of hatred against Israel and against its protector America, so much so that the U.S. and Israeli delegations walked out. [/QUOTE]
But he does not mention that the Jewish world were portraying hate against the Muslims. Intentional deception, or extreme ignorance?
[QUOTE]or notice Palestinian street celebrations of the Manhattan massacre.[/QUOTE]
Evidence showed that the coverage of supposed stree dancers was actually footage taken before the attacks ever happened. I think it was Indimedia that covered the story. And no mention of MOSSAD agents in America dancing and taking footages of of the Twin Tower collapse? And all the other Jews celebrating the attacks because "it was good for Israel?" Intentional deception of extreme ignorance?
[QUOTE]Terrorists[/QUOTE]
He does not metion all of the Israeli terrorist attacks.
[QUOTE]It is no good blaming Israel for existing when its foundation was a desperate response to mechanized racial murder. [/QUOTE]
The Holocaust never happened. And the author makes no mention of how Jewish Bolshevics in Russia murdered millions of Christians. Intentional deception or profound ignorance?
[QUOTE]Israel is not like other countries because it is a Western nation carved out of Middle Eastern territory.[/QUOTE]
Israel is Jewish, not Western. And the West is not even Western anymore, but rather Jewish. There is no Western left.
[QUOTE]Israelââ¬â¢s people are European by culture and law, imposing that culture and law on a region where cousin marriage and tribal loyalty are normal, while pluralism, tolerance, party politics, and the rule of law are abnormal.[/QUOTE]
But Jews have the same characteristics as attributted to Arabs above. Inbreeding is very common among Jews and a great collection of recessive genes in their race is one indication of this. Jews also believe is extreme racial loyalty, and cultural and racial diversity is greatly frowned upon in Israel. Again, is the author intentionally lying or just profoundly ignorant of the facts?
[QUOTE]This makes Israel the permanent ally, in the Middle East, of the worldââ¬â¢s lawful and free countries. [/QUOTE]
What about all the Israeli terrorist attacks upon America, like the USS Liberty, the Lavon Affair, the Sept. 11 attacks, and many others? Not much of an ally Israel is.
[QUOTE]This alliance is based on cultural and political kinship[/QUOTE]
Israel has cultural and political kinship with American ZOG, not with the average American.
[QUOTE]We do know that an ugly anti-Semitism previously largely unknown in the Middle East, has been deliberately and crudely encouraged by Arab regimes trying to find an outlet for the justified discontents of their own poor. [/QUOTE]
No, Muslims became anti-Jewish every since modern technology in the Twentieth Century, like mass communication, fast travel like planes, and big weapons like tanks, missles, fighter jets, machine guns, nukes, and chem/bio weapons, has given Jews the ability to finally carry out what they have fantacized about for the last 5,000 years: death to all Gentiles. They have been underming Arab/Muslim nations since the start of the Twentieth Century using these new technologies, so the result was anti-Jewish sentiments among them.
[QUOTE]We also know that there has been no desire for permanent compromise and genuine peace between even the supposedly moderate Arab regimes and Israel. [/QUOTE]
By compromise, the author means the Muslims should agree to completely subordinate themselves to any Jewish commands. Only when Muslims agree that Jews are their rightful master will this author be pleased.
[QUOTE]The state of relations between Israel and Egypt, for instance, is frigid, nervous, and held in place mainly by American subsidies, and this despite Israelââ¬â¢s handover of territory of enormous strategic value. [/QUOTE]
He is saying that Isael did Egypt a favor by handing over the land they stole from Egypt a few years back! This land already belonged to Egypt. I am now thinking that the author is not guilty of profound ignorance by rather intentional deception.
[QUOTE]Zionism is often equated directly with German National Socialism by critics of Israel. The only reason for this absurd, disproportionate, and cynical claim is that it neutralizes the fundamental case for Zionism, namely that Germanyââ¬â¢s policy of systematic massacre was unique, and that the Jewish case for a Jewish sovereign state is therefore unique.[/QUOTE]
Zionism is the desire for Jewish world domination. National Socialism, according to modern history books, was the desire for "Aryan" world domination. The author is lying by stating the two are not the same.
[QUOTE]Conservatism is realistic, honest, consistent, and opposed to cant. It takes the side of the particular and the ancient.[/QUOTE]
He is assuming that "Conservatism" is an absolute term, that if we were to open up a dictionary, it would exactly state what social policy a Conservative would support. But in reality, there is so much variation in conservative belief.
Then he says that his definition of conservatism is supporting the ancient. Well, the ancient Whites were "racist" and anti-Jewish. Is he really this ignorant? I think not, he is engaging in extreme lying/deception
So, the question is, why is he lying? Perhaps he is getting paid well by Jews for doing this and he has no morals preventing him from placing his monetary gains above the interest of his fellow Americans?
Or is he be threatened by physical harm by Jews or their White elite partners?
Or perhaps the author of this article is the type of Christian who believes that Jews are God's Chosen Race and that he is commanded by his deity to support Jews, even if it requires lying, for doing so will ensure him a seat in Heaven, while being anti-Jewish will send him to Hell.
Are there any other possible reasons why he is lying?
Conservative
2003-10-11 21:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]So glad I dumped my TAC subscription and give my money to Joe Sobran, American Free Press, and Middle American News now instead.
This article reinforces my belief that I did the right thing.[/QUOTE]
Oy, Centinel, you stole my line. Have to agree completely. So glad I let my subscription lapse. BTW, Hitchens mother was a closet Jew and he I believe is a practicing Anglican. His mother revealed the truth only when her husband was on his deathbed.
Speaking of the absurdity of Christian Zionism, see:
[url]http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/zionism/tomwoods3.html[/url]
or do a search form more work by Woods and Sungenis on the subject.
2003-10-12 11:36 | User Profile
"Conservative" - whoever you are - your response was ON THE MONEY.
And Sert: [QUOTE]Pat and Taki would do well not to waste paper on articles by Derbyshire and this one. I'd rather they give the space to Sobran[/QUOTE].
You oughta know Joe Sobran is persona non grata in the pages of TAC. I get the feeling that Pat & Taki wake up every morning overjoyed that they haven't yet been fixed in Team Shmuel's crosshairs the way Sobran and Irving and Gibson already have. It's as if they'd rather [I]not be yelled at [/I] than read.
2003-10-12 11:45 | User Profile
Il ragno,
It damn sure looks that way. Sadly, I'm afraid that you are right.
2003-10-22 02:44 | User Profile
Pat should have published this with an editorial note in bold letters about the psychotic Peter Htichens' hidden bias for Israel due to his belief in a ridiculous and false evangelical prophecy of the second coming of Christ, which is not supported by the Vatican I or II. The US has already forked over $3 trillion plus nuclear warheads to further Judgment Day. Their slogan is "support Israel so we can destroy the world in self-fulfillment of our fake prophecy." There is nothing European or even remotely religious about this. There is nothing these jews don't infest.
2003-10-22 02:56 | User Profile
I'm pretty suprised by the reaction worthless article has gotten. After all, Buchanan has a long history of groveling before the powers that be when it comes to the issues of race and anything that jewry cares about. This lastest bit simply reafirms my rejection of what passes for paleo-conservatism these days because it conserves nothing that provides the provides the basis for things people like Buchanan suposedly care about.
2003-10-22 05:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=triskelion]I'm pretty suprised by the reaction worthless article has gotten. After all, Buchanan has a long history of groveling before the powers that be when it comes to the issues of race and anything that jewry cares about. This lastest bit simply reafirms my rejection of what passes for paleo-conservatism these days because it conserves nothing that provides the provides the basis for things people like Buchanan suposedly care about.[/QUOTE]
I know we differ on Buchanan and paleoconservatism. I think here though one can take issue with three things, firstly your identification of this article with Buchanan, secondy, your (once again) your all too easy dismissal of Buchanan and lastly, your equation of Buchanan with "what passes for paleoconservatism.
The powers at TAC have obviously made a decision to court mainstream favor. I can't believe Pat is entirely happy about this. Obviously the logic of this article by the notorius neo-con supporter and liberal Hitchens would seem to run against everything Buchanan argued against in "Whose War".
I agree Pat's overall ideological impact and usefulness to WN is small and growing smaller, but one should not write him off.
He is what he is, even if its not what we want. I don't think he's being disingenious. He has chosen to maintain his mainstream media position, and this does have some positive potential.
Adimittedly, one does not have to be a paleo to make that contribution. Even mainstream liberal attacks on neoconservative plicies have become pointed recently.
Probably one should not confise the two rhetorically anymore. Buchananism it appears to me is drifting toward becoming nothing more than mainstream conservatism with some paleoconservative sentiments.
2003-10-22 20:25 | User Profile
It never ceases to amaze me that someone that knows as much about race, jewry and real conservatism as you do holds someone so bereft of principle as Buchanan in such high regard. I am sure you recall countless past threads in which it was shown that supposed conservative came out in favour of multi-racialism while condemning those that fundamentally object to that cancer loosened upon our nations in strident terms so as to hold on to his job as a spokesmen for the "loyal opposition" to the very system that seeks to destroy the things we both prize.
As to the politics of TAC not being simple I'd say such a notion is easily refuted. Buchanan holds vast influence within that publication so the fact that a neo-con defense of jewish supremacy within Arab lands is printed without a single word of qualification or retort clearly proves that he has no real objection to it. Taki and McConnell have never once said anything that could lead one to believe that they have some basic objection to multi-racialism but, instead, they are simply like Buchanan in that they object to the consequences of multi-racialism on it's current scale but hold fast to that most destructive of delusions that culture can separated from the race that created it via the magic of assimilation and a rate of our dispossesion. The mere fact that he works with people of such a mind set while publishing a magazine that in no way attempts to refute such societal poison proves that Buchanan is no conservative even without the scores of comments he made else where supporting such notions. Quite simply, Buchanan is nothing more then a mercenary that places his marginal toehold within the propasphere above what ever principles he may hold.
As to mainstream paleo cons in general in the states I will note that the TAC is the flagship publication for the overwhelming majority of those that see themselves as conservatives in opposition to the neo-con GOP. I will also point out that no paleo con publication exists that fundamentally rejects multi-racialism or Modernity and that those very few paleo con personalities that do ( like Dr. Francis) have no ideological framework that serves as an alternative to the current order but instead merely have a critique of the neo cons that never mention the basis of that form of subversion. Certainly such a critique is important and am glad that Dr. Francis has a platform to make it but a critique without a comprehensive alternative will never lead to a meaningful challenge of the current order. Instead, mainstream paleo cons have nothing more then a wish list of public policy outcomes which spring from a hazy and ill defined nostalgia combined with a legalistic gestalt that has zero relevancy because the societal conditions that made their institutional conceptions tenable have long since vanished. Please note that I have made similar evaluations about the racist scene the states. In short, mainstream paleo cons in the states (with the notable exception of good folks like yourself) are simply people that realize that the neo-cons are not conservative but lack the perception and/or courage to come to a realistic understanding of the consequences of accepting Traditionalism and rejecting the foundationalism of Modernity.
2003-10-23 04:16 | User Profile
Anti-establishment candidates for president are generally discredited and marginalized, then all but ignored by the Zionist-controlled media. Buchanan was an exception; it always struck me as odd that, during his run for president, he would regularly appear on television, the one-eyed Jew, promoting his campaign. He may well have been a Trojan Hourse, thrown up by the establishment to derail any third-party movements.
You die-hard Buchanan supporters can say what you will, but at the moment third-party populism is all but dead in America. You can thank Buchanan.
-Z-
2003-10-23 07:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=triskelion]It never ceases to amaze me that someone that knows as much about race, jewry and real conservatism as you do holds someone so bereft of principle as Buchanan in such high regard. I am sure you recall countless past threads in which it was shown that supposed conservative came out in favour of multi-racialism while condemning those that fundamentally object to that cancer loosened upon our nations in strident terms so as to hold on to his job as a spokesmen for the "loyal opposition" to the very system that seeks to destroy the things we both prize.
Yes, we've argued over Buchanan and Buchanism before. I still think you, along with VNN, (aka "Squinty Pat" and "Canny Sammy" Linder) fundamentally are not able or willing to give a fair overall picture of Buchanan's overall contribution to the public domain, by insisting on judging him like some Communist or Nazi theoritician, examining every word for deviationism.
Pat is not a rigid theoritician. He says things all across the board. Just as the ADL thinks he's a crypto-Nazi for things he has said ("America is Zionist Occupied Territory", etc.) you judge him for the other things he's said that express liberal feelings.
I will admit if Pat had said the things he had in the Third Reich he would have soon have been arrested and shot. But I think you overlook Pat's contribution simply because as a foreigner you still have difficulty in fully accepting the abysmal conditions genuine conservatives and nationalists habitate in the states, even though you are unusually acquainted with America.
To some extent I'd say its just therefore a difference in perspective. You may be correct in viewing Buchanism as a room mostly filled with darkness. But many of us still see more the flickering of a candle and the faint illumination.
As to the politics of TAC not being simple I'd say such a notion is easily refuted. Buchanan holds vast influence within that publication so the fact that a neo-con defense of jewish supremacy within Arab lands is printed without a single word of qualification or retort clearly proves that he has no real objection to it. Taki and McConnell have never once said anything that could lead one to believe that they have some basic objection to multi-racialism but, instead, they are simply like Buchanan in that they object to the consequences of multi-racialism on it's current scale but hold fast to that most destructive of delusions that culture can separated from the race that created it via the magic of assimilation and a rate of our dispossesion. The mere fact that he works with people of such a mind set while publishing a magazine that in no way attempts to refute such societal poison proves that Buchanan is no conservative even without the scores of comments he made else where supporting such notions. Quite simply, Buchanan is nothing more then a mercenary that places his marginal toehold within the propasphere above what ever principles he may hold.
Yes, money is important, and appeasing Taki, and perhaps even other influential media personalities like the CNN producers of "Crossfire" probably influences Pat. If you don't like it you're perfectly free to start your own magazine and audition for a television presence. As it is - lets see - Pat has a reach of tens of millions of people - thousands of times VNN, let alone OD. If Pat spoke like you suggested his reach would in all likelihood be no more than VNN.
Let's face it, all of us accomodate ourselves to some extent to our audience, and the more successful people acccomodate themselves more.
As to mainstream paleo cons in general in the states I will note that the TAC is the flagship publication for the overwhelming majority of those that see themselves as conservatives in opposition to the neo-con GOP.
I don't know. I thought Chronicles and even Lew Rockwel on the net basically fill this role. No one here I think reads TAC.
(I let my subscription lapse)
I will also point out that no paleo con publication exists that fundamentally rejects multi-racialism or Modernity and that those very few paleo con personalities that do ( like Dr. Francis) have no ideological framework that serves as an alternative to the current order but instead merely have a critique of the neo cons that never mention the basis of that form of subversion.
You are overlooking the Council of Conservative Citizens, publication, The Middle American News, which Francis edits. It says things, notably from people like Mallard Fillmore I think, that most people say would make people like you proud.
Certainly such a critique is important and am glad that Dr. Francis has a platform to make it but a critique without a comprehensive alternative will never lead to a meaningful challenge of the current order.
I wonder if you've even heard of Francis's concept of Middle American Radicalism. It seems to me I recall reading in the past you saying you weren't well acquainted with Francis's work and theory. Certainly if you want to revisit it, we have had a lot of old threads on Francis, including ones dealing with Linder's griping about "Canny Sammy". I don't think you've really participated much in these past discussions before really to tell the truth, and until you do so, I don't think we are likely to really make much progress.
I even of course have a lengthy comment on Francis's thought in my signature.
Instead, mainstream paleo cons have nothing more then a wish list of public policy outcomes which spring from a hazy and ill defined nostalgia combined with a legalistic gestalt that has zero relevancy because the societal conditions that made their institutional conceptions tenable have long since vanished.
Here I assume you are drifting back from Francis and MAR to mainstream paleoism, epitimized more by Thomas Fleming.
Please note that I have made similar evaluations about the racist scene the states. Well you're critical of the racist scene I know (VNN etc).
In short, mainstream paleo cons in the states (with the notable exception of good folks like yourself) are simply people that realize that the neo-cons are not conservative but lack the perception and/or courage to come to a realistic understanding of the consequences of accepting Traditionalism and rejecting the foundationalism of Modernity.[/QUOTE]
To begin with "mainstream paleoconservatism" is sort of an oxymoron. Its very much a fringe position, so much so that it really is difficult to define what makes one a paleo-conservative in an ideologically coherent manner. I think it is thus very much, as I think Scotchie notes, a new and evolving position. The word really is just a Thomas Fleming creation. To some extent it is sometimes used as just a broad-brush description of all the forces on the right the neocons could not coopt or dominate. It overestimates the ideological cohesiveness of the movement.
I would say this "broad paleoconservatism" for want of a better word, is highly suspicious of all forms of modernity and liberalism, but remains reluctant to reject certain basic principles of American conservatism closely tied to the founding - at least without good reason. In some respects it is stil rather amorphous actually.
I think actually the writings and theory of Kevin MacDonald could play a big part in potentially galvanizing and organizing
this broad anti-mainstream conservative establishment. Ad to this extent I think we in the racialist movement sometimes forget how little good defenders of some basic racial principles like MacDonald are known in America, or how little credible alternative there really is to him. After all much of the writings of racialists in the U.S., composed of lengthy conspiracy and Protocols theories, (if not delving into flying saucers like Jeff Rense) do more harm than good.
I'd sympathize more with criticisms of the darkness from people like you and the racialists if you occasionally did more to light a candle than just appearing to curse the darkness.
Along these lines, I wonder if you might give us your practical advice on the merits of some of [url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=9873]Wintermute's Action Items[/url]. I think this thread might have come and gone while you're away, but your input would be most appreciated.
2003-10-23 17:10 | User Profile
Very well-put, AY.
2003-10-23 17:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MadScienceType]Very well-put, AY.[/QUOTE]
I can open Pandora's box, but it takes AY to tell us what's in there.
-Z-
2003-10-23 19:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE]True, TAC is not unilaterally Buchanan's property, but he certainly has some say about what appears there ([B]as for Taki, who financed the venture, he is probably less friendly to Zionism than Buchanan[/B]).[/QUOTE]
No question that Taki is more hard-core than Pat but he is also far more mercurial. He'll skewer Sharon & Netanyahu in one paragraph and then wax nostalgic about scoring trim with Sam Spiegel back in the 50s in another. This trait of Taki's - glorying in the sexual favors his wealth & position have gotten him, as if inherited money is the benchmark of Achievement, entitling him to perks like bimbos and open-bar privileges on every continent - is one he shares with, [I]ohhh[/I], maybe 13 million Jews. It's only [I]after[/I] he gets his post-bender B-12 shot that he seems to work up any righteous anger against The Shitty Little.
McConnell is another quixotic bird. I remember when he was Murdoch's editorial-page editor at the NY POST; he could be counted upon to regularly spew such philoSemitic drool that you wanted to pull him to the side and advise him to wipe the traces of feces off his nose and eyebrows before he went back out in public. Apparently even his famous rejection by Podhoretz [I]pere[/I] was such that he didn't undergo an awakening so much as he felt [I]betrayed[/I].
Why Joe Sobran continues to treat TAC with the softest of kid gloves is a mystery to me. And anybody who seriously believes that "Whose War?" struck as many profound chords of recognition in rank-and-file Americans as "Who Rules America?" is deluding themselves.
2003-10-23 19:16 | User Profile
I agree with the consensus that Anti-Yuppie is OD's MVP. His ability to parse issues, trends and personalities with purposeful seriousness- while never becoming stodgy or strident - is remarkable.
2003-10-23 20:16 | User Profile
O.D. :Yes, we've argued over Buchanan and Buchanism before. I still think you, along with VNN, (aka "Squinty Pat" and "Canny Sammy" Linder) fundamentally are not able or willing to give a fair overall picture of Buchanan's overall contribution to the public domain, by insisting on judging him like some Communist or Nazi theoretician, examining every word for deviationism. Pat is not a rigid theoretician. He says things all across the board. Just as the ADL thinks he's a crypto-Nazi for things he has said ("America is Zionist Occupied Territory", etc.) you judge him for the other things he's said that express liberal feelings.
VO: Well for starters you should have noted that I don't use VNN style rhetoric and I have condemned it in point of fact so please stop tarring me with the brush you use on them. As for your wild claim that I judge him, or anyone, according to so some strict doctrinaire standard is baseless. I am sure you know that I support in a major way several populist parties even though they are far from me in ideological terms and if nothing else my public life is as much, if not, more about building coalitions as it is about promoting the ideological agenda of the organizations that I support (both publicly oriented and other wise). The simple fact is that he uses his access to the establishment media to promote ideas and policies that are fundamentally destructive in societal terms and I call him on it. You choose to pretend other wise acting as if he's a genuine alternative when I am sure you know other wise.
O.D.: I will admit if Pat had said the things he had in the Third Reich he would have soon have been arrested and shot. But I think you overlook Pat's contribution simply because as a foreigner you still have difficulty in fully accepting the abysmal conditions genuine conservatives and nationalists habitat in the states, even though you are unusually acquainted with America.
V.O. : I note that in these exchanges you have a strong desire to raise the neo-con styled specter of Hollywood even when the thread has nothing to do with those topics and you know full well that I don't promote mimicry of the NSDAP era in present day Germany or anywhere else. Please stop doing so as I'd rather address the matter at hand.
Pat has had no contribution to the moribund paleo - con scene in your country. He has written a few books that expressed ideas expressed far better by Kirk and countless others which got more publicity and better sales as a result of his limited access to the media. That would be good except that the originality of his writings fails to address the systemic shorting comings of mainstream paleo conservatism but support them. If he had some idea about political strategy he could have attempted to have built a regional power base which would have had some possibility of slowing down the rate of disintegration of Occidental America but instead he chose to waste massive resources on presidential bids that got no where's near the results of Anderson let alone Wallace or Thurman. What his history shows is that his ideology is shallow, unoriginal and incapable of dealing with the societal destruction facing your country. It also shows that if he had anything to offer he lacked any ideas about how to do so which is again reflected in the misnamed TAC.
As to how bad a habitat exists with the states I'll simply say that such is largely a result of paleos and WN types dogged determination to only pursue that which has been proven to not work. Having spent several years in the states I'd say that pig headed defense of failed ideas and methods as well as a rote condemnations of those that point out the obvious is the defining character of "the right". A popular term to describe such people in various European nations is the "Top Secret League of Deservedly Morbid Patriots" or TSLDMP for short.
O.D. "To some extent I'd say its just therefore a difference in perspective. You may be correct in viewing Buchanism as a room mostly filled with darkness. But many of us still see more the flickering of a candle and the faint illumination." V.O : No, I see Buchanan as 10000 watt flood light that led well meaning people like yourself down a mine shaft that's about to collapse. 1. Quote:
As to the politics of TAC not being simple I'd say such a notion is easily refuted. Buchanan holds vast influence within that publication so the fact that a neo-con defense of jewish supremacy within Arab lands is printed without a single word of qualification or retort clearly proves that he has no real objection to it. Taki and McConnell have never once said anything that could lead one to believe that they have some basic objection to multi-racialism but, instead, they are simply like Buchanan in that they object to the consequences of multi-racialism on it's current scale but hold fast to that most destructive of delusions that culture can separated from the race that created it via the magic of assimilation and a rate of our dispossession. The mere fact that he works with people of such a mind set while publishing a magazine that in no way attempts to refute such societal poison proves that Buchanan is no conservative even without the scores of comments he made else where supporting such notions. Quite simply, Buchanan is nothing more then a mercenary that places his marginal toehold within the propasphere above what ever principles he may hold.
O.D.: Yes, money is important, and appeasing Taki, and perhaps even other influential media personalities like the CNN producers of "Crossfire" probably influences Pat.
V.O.: Translation - Buchanan values money over what ever principles he has. Of course his coroupt compromise results in the promotion of ideas that retard rather then advance paleo -cons coming to grip with what matters. O.D. "If you don't like it you're perfectly free to start your own magazine and audition for a television presence." V.O. : If I was born into Pat's wealth I would. Of course, his connections to establishment and vast wealth have been used to promote ideas that are not conservative and in fact highly destructive. Instead, I support Radio Oasis which broadcasts genuine and effective nationalist propaganda to tens of thousands every day. Instead, I have made credible runs for parliament on the mainland, been elected to local office here and on the mainland, helped a great many other like minded people do the same and done much to help promote the parties that have actually effected government policy in a positive way. O.D.: "As it is - lets see - Pat has a reach of tens of millions of people - thousands of times VNN, let alone OD." V.O.: And what he promotes with that access has frequently been socially destructive falsehoods that helped to retard making paleo - conservatism into something more then a dying and irrelevant vestige that thinks it's going somewhere inspite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. O.D.: "If Pat spoke like you suggested his reach would in all likelihood be no more than VNN."
V.O.: And if he spoke like Bush he might be president. Of course, again you raise the red hearing of VNN which is starting to grate on me. More to the point is that the way I speak to those I think of as knowledgeable pro Occidental advocates as can be found here on O.D. are rather different then when I do things in public so your hypothetical comparison doesn't hold in any case. D.O.: "Let's face it, all of us accommodate ourselves to some extent to our audience, and the more successful people accommodate themselves more."
V.O. Lets face it, Buchanan has no principles and he has strategic sense to capitalize on them if he did. His message designed to keep his pay check coming in and the fact that he promotes a gestalt that isn't a meaningful alternative and that in so doing he has achieved nothing worth mentioning pretty well speaks for itself. Quote:
As to mainstream paleo cons in general in the states I will note that the TAC is the flagship publication for the overwhelming majority of those that see themselves as conservatives in opposition to the neo-con GOP.
I don't know. I thought Chronicles and even Lew Rockwel on the net basically fill this role. No one here I think reads TAC. (I let my subscription lapse) V.O.: Putting aside the fact that Rockwell is a quasi libertarian and not a conservative by any meaningful definition of that term you may be right. How ever, neither Rockwell or Chronicles holds a societal vision meaningfully different then Buchanan again indicates that mainstream paleo cons (not thoughtful folks like you) are intellectually bankrupt and going no where for all the reasons I addressed before. Quote:
I will also point out that no paleo con publication exists that fundamentally rejects multi-racialism or Modernity and that those very few paleo con personalities that do ( like Dr. Francis) have no ideological framework that serves as an alternative to the current order but instead merely have a critique of the neo cons that never mention the basis of that form of subversion.
O.D.: You are overlooking the Council of Conservative Citizens, publication, The Middle American News, which Francis edits. It says things, notably from people like Mallard Fillmore I think, that most people say would make people like you proud. V.O: Not really. I will admit that I should have prefaced by last comment with the qualifier "mainstream" as the CCC is certainly the lone exception when it comes to race. I note from reading their site and literature that the CCC promotes segregation which is good but I also note that they have no larger ideological structure to put in context with other then the vague nostalgia and misplaced constitutionalism I addressed so often before. They also have no real idea about promoting themselves and have zero societal influence as does the mainstream paleos which often attack the CCC. Quote:
Certainly such a critique is important and am glad that Dr. Francis has a platform to make it but a critique without a comprehensive alternative will never lead to a meaningful challenge of the current order.
O.D.: I wonder if you've even heard of Francis's concept of Middle American Radicalism. It seems to me I recall reading in the past you saying you weren't well acquainted with Francis's work and theory. Certainly if you want to revisit it, we have had a lot of old threads on Francis, including ones dealing with Linder's griping about "Canny Sammy". I don't think you've really participated much in these past discussions before really to tell the truth, and until you do so, I don't think we are likely to really make much progress. V.O: This desire of yours to confuse me Linder is rather puzzling and annoying. In point of fact I made my critique of Dr. Francis in the past quite plain and was far less global then those found on VNN and as time has gone on my position has been attenuated further. As not knowing about "Middle American Radicalism" why not start a thread explaining it and we can see what develops. Quote:
Instead, mainstream paleo cons have nothing more then a wish list of public policy outcomes which spring from a hazy and ill defined nostalgia combined with a legalistic gestalt that has zero relevancy because the societal conditions that made their institutional conceptions tenable have long since vanished.
O.D.: Here I assume you are drifting back from Francis and MAR to mainstream paleoism, epitomized more by Thomas Fleming.
V.O: You assume wrongly. I am simply pointing out that mainstream paleos have no substance and their obscurity reflects that. Quote:
In short, mainstream paleo cons in the states (with the notable exception of good folks like yourself) are simply people that realize that the neo-cons are not conservative but lack the perception and/or courage to come to a realistic understanding of the consequences of accepting Traditionalism and rejecting the foundationalism of Modernity.
V.O: As for my critique of VNN I have had far more extensive criticisms of other organizations which I feel are quite accurately generalized to the scene as whole. O.D.: "To begin with "mainstream paleoconservatism" is sort of an oxymoron. Its very much a fringe position, so much so that it really is difficult to define what makes one a paleo-conservative in an ideologically coherent manner." V.O.: At all. A mainstream paleo con is someone that seeks to differentiate themselves from the neo-cons without offering a substantive alternative but instead focuses upon the tangential matters of nostalgia, misplaced legalism as a result of suffering under the delusion that systemic change is not necessary. They also are defined by their refusal to consider an Organic or Folkish disposition out of fear of losing a respectability they don't hold. In short, it's table manners uber alles conservatism for those that realize what the neo cons are doing is wrong but they lack the insight and courage to understand the consequences of that realization. O.D.: I would say this "broad paleoconservatism" for want of a better word, is highly suspicious of all forms of modernity and liberalism, but remains reluctant to reject certain basic principles of American conservatism closely tied to the founding - at least without good reason. In some respects it is still rather amorphous actually.
V.O: It seems to me that they are not "highly suspicious of all forms of modernity and liberalism" but simply don't like the results of those things. They are fixated upon institutionalism because they have no ideological core and they prefer to pretend that some halcion era can be restored by simply persisting in doing that which has not worked in living memory and absolutely refusing to look at the weaknesses of the old order. The CCC at least has rejected multi-racialism but as the last sentence reflects their mind set they are no more capable of dealing with the current phase of the struggle then are mainstream paleos that reject them.
O.D.: I think actually the writings and theory of Kevin MacDonald could play a big part in potentially galvanizing and organizing this broad anti-mainstream conservative establishment. Ad to this extent I think we in the racialist movement sometimes forget how little good defenders of some basic racial principles like MacDonald are known in America, or how little credible alternative there really is to him. After all much of the writings of racialists in the U.S., composed of lengthy conspiracy and Protocols theories, (if not delving into flying saucers like Jeff Rense) do more harm than good.
V.O.: Every serious racialist I have know holds MacDonald's work in very high esteem while no one the paleo side outside of this forum and the CCC pay any attention to it. I'd say that promoting his work is a great idea (as you know I spent some time in jail for it) but it needs to come with a wider folkish context and public policy prescriptions that logically from it. Until those things happen a sentiment, no matter how positive, lacks the ability to be a catalyst for a meaningful challenge to the current order. O.D.: I'd sympathize more with criticisms of the darkness from people like you and the racialists if you occasionally did more to light a candle than just appearing to curse the darkness.
Along these lines, I wonder if you might give us your practical advice on the merits of some of Wintermute's Action Items. I think this thread might have come and gone while you're away, but your input would be most appreciated."
V.O: I criticize because it needs to be done and I have an emotional stake in the fate Occidental America enough that I simply refuse to pretend that what has not worked for so long has any chance of doing so. If you read my activism articles (the ideas of which were all developed else where and field tested in plenty of venues with great success) you'd see that they are a logical extension of the folkish gestalt that I have expanded upon in my books and articles. By the way, Bjarni Tyrdal has hired an English expert to translate my books and they seem to be coming along well. Also, fellow forum member and Integralist Cruz De Cristos said he will be providing some very important works on Organicism in English for the first time that I think should help as well. I'll take a look at WM's thread and a few other activism threads when I get the chance. I am a bit occupied at the moment at my re-election bid has just 3 weeks left although it looks good at the movement.
2003-10-23 22:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I'd say that promoting MacDonald's work is a great idea (as you know I spent some time in jail for it) ....[/QUOTE]
Actually I did not know that. Certainly this merits respect, and an apology from me for using a too-strident tone in my prior squabbles with you here. While I continue to have differences with you and don't intend changing my particular style, consider the apology tendered. You are an honorable fellow.
2003-10-24 00:18 | User Profile
Thank you Il Ragno for your comment. The incident happened back in the SFOL days and was rather unpleasent. Still I have nothing to complain about really as when one chooses to take such risks you have to be prepared to pay the costs. Certainly if you personally get good results with public activism from your personal style I would encouage you to stick with it. Besides, we both likely know that different forms of organizations and effforts do have their times and place. Certainly, some of what I say he I would not say while at a rally on while siting on a city council meeting.
Fondest regards,
V.O.
2003-10-24 12:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=triskelion]Thank you Il Ragno for your comment. The incident happened back in the SFOL days and was rather unpleasent. Still I have nothing to complain about really as when one chooses to take such risks you have to be prepared to pay the costs.
While I don't completely understand all of your opinions on people like Buchanan, your admirable willingness to take personal risks in your activism is something all of us admire
Certainly if you personally get good results with public activism from your personal style I would encouage you to stick with it. Besides, we both likely know that different forms of organizations and effforts do have their times and place. Certainly, some of what I say he I would not say while at a rally on while siting on a city council meeting.
[/QUOTE] Here is where I don't understand your personal antipathy to Buchanan, and reluctance to give him the slightest amount of credit. We all say different things at different times as you note, so ones opinions inevitably are subjective, as to which instances of reticence are prudence and which are cowardice and even "treason" (as the more strident VNNers are want to say).
I would have some desire to risk belaboring the point about Buchanan, as it seems the far right's general contempt towards Buchanan and his followers is still irrational and counterproductive. A lot of it to me seems transparently totalitarian - the general unwillingness of the racialists to countenance democratic and non-violent alternatives to their programme. You have quite a different criticisms and a more specific list of criticisms, so I'll take your word for it that yor criticisms are of a fundamentally different nature. Buchanan is retired from politics, so criticism of his legacy is now just academic.
O.D.: You are overlooking the Council of Conservative Citizens, publication, The Middle American News, which Francis edits. It says things, notably from people like Mallard Fillmore I think, that most people say would make people like you proud.
V.O: Not really. I will admit that I should have prefaced by last comment with the qualifier "mainstream" as the CCC is certainly the lone exception when it comes to race. I note from reading their site and literature that the CCC promotes segregation which is good but I also note that they have no larger ideological structure to put in context with other then the vague nostalgia and misplaced constitutionalism I addressed so often before. They also have no real idea about promoting themselves and have zero societal influence as does the mainstream paleos which often attack the CCC.
Certainly such a critique is important and am glad that Dr. Francis has a platform to make it but a critique without a comprehensive alternative will never lead to a meaningful challenge of the current order.
Well they do have enough influence to merit a motion in Congress condemning them. Their organizational and publicity type weaknesses have been noted. Their approach and the validity of their mentality to some extent seems confined to Mississippi, where one can still express sympathies for segregation and partipate in the political mainstream.
This "vague nostalgia and misplaced constitutionalism" are of course the defining beliefs of any neo-Confederates and neo-Confederate organization, as it was to some extent of the Confederacy itself. One feels compelled at some extent to respect this legacy, as one at the some times recognizes the need to diplomatically tell people that in some respects its time to move on. That's always been the dualism of Southern nationalists - even David Duke comes vaguely to mind.
O.D.: I wonder if you've even heard of Francis's concept of Middle American Radicalism. It seems to me I recall reading in the past you saying you weren't well acquainted with Francis's work and theory. Certainly if you want to revisit it, we have had a lot of old threads on Francis, including ones dealing with Linder's griping about "Canny Sammy". I don't think you've really participated much in these past discussions before really to tell the truth, and until you do so, I don't think we are likely to really make much progress.
V.O: This desire of yours to confuse me Linder is rather puzzling and annoying. In point of fact I made my critique of Dr. Francis in the past quite plain and was far less global then those found on VNN and as time has gone on my position has been attenuated further. As not knowing about "Middle American Radicalism" why not start a thread explaining it and we can see what develops.
My only desire is to understand a little more the general lack of recognition of the large amount of material coming from Dr. Francis, and his theories. One can understand it of course coming from posturers and polemicists like Linder, but to hear what seems occasionaly on a superficial level the same dismissal of Dr. Francis from you is something I still don't fully understand.
This is esecially puzzling since it woul seem Dr. Francis shares so many of the same criticisms of mainstream paleo-conservatives, i.e. their "vague nostalgia and misplaced constitutionalism", along with their lack of a comprehensive alternative and concrete plan of political mobilization and action as you.
My signature contains a succinct description of middle american radicalism, albeit in the form of a critique. If you like I can put some other source materials together and start a thread on it shortly if you think some people are likely to read these and be swayed by them, although Francis cetainly isn't a new topic here.
2003-10-24 15:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I also note that they have no larger ideological structure to put in context with other then the [B]vague nostalgia and misplaced constitutionalism[/B] I addressed so often before.[/QUOTE]
Well, it's [I]very specific and clearly-delineated [/I] nostalgia, for one thing. And I can think of nothing more innately radical at this point in time than strict constitutionalism. It's [B]so [/B] radical a notion that I believe you'll see an NS America before you'd see a return to the original US Constitution enforced with anything beyond lip service and platitudes. Too many profitable applecarts would be turned over and smashed flat were THAT ever to occur.
2003-10-24 17:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Triskelion has correctly identified the greatest failure of paleoconservatism. Regardless of how good their criticisms of the establishment may be, most paleoconservatives shy away from offering a concrete alternative, and when they do, it is usually some laughable empty slogan (see below) about "small government" or "returning to the constitution." [/QUOTE]
What do you think of the America First Party? They are not what you would call hardline racialists and refer to Christianity as "Judeo-Christianity", though their policies seem to be in order. [url]www.americafirstparty.org[/url]
[QUOTE]utopianism is neither mainstream nor workable.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by "Utopianism"? I consider myself a Utopian, a philosophy founded in the belief of the perfectibility of man.
2003-10-24 17:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Say what you like, but at least the hardcore racialists and National Socialists offer a concrete and (at least in theory) workable alternative based on a relatively modern model.[/QUOTE]
Which have a zero chance of being implemented here in the States. Not focusing solely on the two examples you mention, as one could easily put communism or pure libertarianism in the same boat, but dogmatic political ideologies will never enjoy wide-spread appeal here. At least for the forseeable future.
This is not Europe, thank heavens. The American mind is of a different mentality than what one finds overseas and notions of freedom, independence, individuality and self-reliance are still too much a part of our psychi to submit to some overt, collective political movement. Those roots are European and America was born out of the rejection of all that.
Personally, I don't see the need for dogmatic, point-by-point political and social platforms, where slight deviations from the collective herd are denounced and excommunicated. I wouldn't want any part of something like that. Granted we have much to do to clean our house, but I still believe in the supremacy of a constitutional republic.
2003-10-24 18:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] This is not Europe, thank heavens. The American mind is of a different mentality than what one finds overseas and notions of freedom, independence, individuality and self-reliance are still too much a part of our psychi to submit to some overt, collective political movement. Those roots are European and America was born out of the rejection of all that. [/QUOTE]
America may have been founded on a political rejection of Europe, but I don't think it was ever founded on a cultural or even economic rejection of Europe. Need we forget many American cultural traditions(I mean its real cultural traditions) have origins in Europe. For example Bluegrass and Country music are based of traditional Irish/English folk music.
It's because so many Americans intrepeted the political rejection as a cultural one as well is what first lead this country down the path to the decadent mass-consumer culture we have today. Sadly the South was the last bastion of America's European heritage before being destroyed by the precursors of Amerikwa.
2003-10-24 20:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. [/QUOTE]
I just don't see how this requires an agrarian society or a nation of shopkeepers to be implemented or adhered to.
I understand pragmatism, but there are certain forms of pragmatism that - at bottom - are the defeatist acknowledgement of systemic corruption. Granted, I don't think the Constitution is going to be making a comeback anytime soon either, but I draw the line at saying that, all things considered, it [I]shouldn't [/I]; and we're probably better off that it [I]won't[/I].
Hey, I thought the days of fighting and dying for United Fruit were over too...till Perle and Wolfowitz proved me wrong.
2003-10-24 20:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]"The America First Party" strikes me as little more than what remains of the Buchanan constituency without a visible leader or spokesman. Furthermore, its spokesmen seem to run the spectrum on most major issues, so it's hard to pin down what, if anything, they really stand for. Though as I noted in my previous posts, that is an inherent problem with Buchanan and paleoconservatism itself, in that both defined themselves more in terms of what they were not rather than what they were. [/QUOTE]
The AFP was founded by Buchananites just last year. For a new party I am of the opinion that their policies are solid. I agree with just about everything they put forth. When I look at all the other parties I find a barren road and general chaos between members.
I think the AFP with sufficient funds could have a real chance of gaining power.
[QUOTE]Concerning "Utopianism," I agree with your definition, in that a utopian believes in the perfection of society and the possible perfectibility of man. However, not only do I reject these views as counterproductive, I find them outright dangerous and pernicious. In general, liberalism in all of its forms, from Enlightenment/French Revolution "classical liberalism" to Marxism, stems from a belief in the perfectibility of man. Most conservative ideologies, in contrast (with the exception of libertarianism, which I consider to be leftist in many senses) understand man's failures, weaknesses, and shortcomings and the fact that society must be run in a way that takes these matters into consideration. Machiavelli and Hobbes are much more valuable as political thinkers than Jean Jacques Rousseau.[/QUOTE]
I believe that we all need to work to better ourselves. Where Utopianist Perfection differs from liberalism or communism is in the definition of what each find to be perfect. The left believes that progressive taxes are needed to bring about economic equilibrium. I believe that progressive taxes have sabotaged capitalism and only bring about wars for ZOG and a totalitarian government. So there's two sides of the coin. While we should understand man's failures we should also never accept them, but strive to align ourselves with the natural order of things and the Will of the Creator.
One of the greatest debates in nature is that of the food chain. If violence was to be outlawed then the equilibrium of nature would be disrupted to the point of its destruction. To a liberal who respects not nature, total non-violence would seem perfect. But to anyone else who exists outside the Marxist fantasy this would not only be absurd but would define the anti-life and therefore anti-perfection principle. For this reason I believe the left to be anti-perfectionists.
2003-10-24 20:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]As to the broader issues you raise, namely, American individualism and our cultural divide from Europe, one might argue that these are weaknesses rather than strengths. The dangers of individualism have been discussed on various threads in connection with Kevin MacDonald's work, namely, the fact that an individualist society is easily infiltrated and defeated by an organized group strategy is precisely why Jews and other organized ethnic minorities have been able to exercise so much power in America. The "individualist" refuses to see the group identity inherent in every man, naively assuming that the individual Jew or negro looks back at him and sees another man, another human being, rather than a member of a different tribe or race.
Concerning the effects of America's break with Europe, this is a greater problem still, because it has created a "historyless" society. Just as the individualist is divorced from his collective racial and cultural identity, an America that has forgotten its European roots is divorced from its Western historical identity, and thus fails to recognize that one may find an ally in a Frenchman or German for precisely the same reasons that one finds an enemy in a Jew, a mestizo, or a negro. This ahistorical identity is also what has fostered a soulless consumer culture in our society, one which can only titillate man's most base materialist impulses because it has no spiritual or traditional foundation to build upon.[/QUOTE]
Well, I would argue that we have a history here in America and the English traditions before it. Going further, I find no greater enemies than our own resident 'Germans' on this board, so when you mention 'Western historical identity' that obviously is way too broad an appeal. If you want to make the case that a constitutional republic is only sustainable in a society of white Protestants, then I think a strong case can be made for that and one I would readily agree with. With these qualifications, one is capitalizing on spiritual and traditional foundations. I'm becoming more and more convinced that shared history is not enough, but a common spiritual history and practice of same trumps all.
2003-10-24 22:27 | User Profile
The paleos must be getting intimidated once again. They usually run stuff like this when they are about to criticize the Jews for something, to deflect charges of anti-Semitism.
2003-10-24 22:27 | User Profile
O.D.: "While I don't completely understand all of your opinions on people like Buchanan, your admirable willingness to take personal risks in your activism is something all of us admire."
V.O.: Thank you for your sentiment. However, I am simply aspiring with mediocre results to follow the example of others far superior to myself.
O.D.: "Here is where I don't understand your personal antipathy to Buchanan, and reluctance to give him the slightest amount of credit. We all say different things at different times as you note, so ones opinions inevitably are subjective, as to which instances of reticence are prudence and which are cowardice and even "treason" (as the more strident VNNers are want to say).
I would have some desire to risk belaboring the point about Buchanan, as it seems the far right's general contempt towards Buchanan and his followers is still irrational and counterproductive. A lot of it to me seems transparently totalitarian - the general unwillingness of the racialists to countenance democratic and non-violent alternatives to their programme. You have quite a different criticisms and a more specific list of criticisms, so I'll take your word for it that your criticisms are of a fundamentally different nature."
V.O. Given that I don't, and never have, followed Buchanan's critics I won't say how my position on him compares to theirs. I will say that my position comes from what he says and what he has done without someone else's ideological filter getting in the way. I give him no credit because he deserves none. He deserves no credit because he is not and has never been in even a broad sense folkishly inclined and has in fact been quite open in his endorsement of social pathologies that am sworn to oppose. Hearing what he has to say is reason enough to reject him in broadly defined folkish terms rather then on some doctrinaire basis. If he was at least effective in promoting a regionally based American populist enterprise, rather then a real nationalist organization, like Pia Kjærsgaard's Dansk Folkeparti or Bossi's Lega Nord I could say that inspite of his substantial ideological he was at least building something that may one day do something productive. As to different approaches/styles, I made that comment to another racialist within the context of those that at least in some general sense share values that can broadly be seen as folkish although substantially different from mine. What that means is that I see a roll for Think Tanks, activist cadre groups, publishers of various sorts, infiltration efforts, counter power schemes and public activism that emphasizes the societal & economic benefits of the Folkish/Organic Weltanschauung. While those that adhere to other ideologies can be used in a strategic or tactical sense from time to time they are not be confused with those of us that want Occidental renewal. Buchanan has neither served a widely defined Folkish/Organic weltanschauung nor does he share it. Hence my view of him.
O.D.: "Buchanan is retired from politics, so criticism of his legacy is now just academic".
V.O.: Not at all. He is still very much a luminary on the paleo - con scene and plays a major, if not dominant, roll at a major paleo - con publication. He and his magazine are promoting the same failed vision they always have and it seems a result of cowardice rather then some cagey sense of pushing a thin end of a wedge for something better. Again, this is easy to see when one looks at the idiocy (like the article that started this thread) found in TAC but also the comments of those that run the magazine.
O.D.: "Well they do have enough influence to merit a motion in Congress condemning them."
V.O.: Nonsense, what that shows is that the ADL/SPLC has enough influence to make Congress attack a small, powerless group to help out it's fund raising drive from paranoid leftists and craven companies.
O.D.: "Their organizational and publicity type weaknesses have been noted. Their approach and the validity of their mentality to some extent seems confined to Mississippi, where one can still express sympathies for segregation and participate in the political mainstream."
V.O.: Having spent lots of time in the deep South, including Mississippi, and having friends there that support the CCC I know for a fact that they have a minium public presence, no idea how to get any and real ideology other then wishing for a return to the ââ¬Ë50s or some idealized antebellum era long dead with no real idea about why they are where they are (again, I refer all to Pareto's theory of elite degeneration). Perhaps these defects wouldn't matter were they to have a very charismatic leader but you know my objections to "personality vehicles" as long term dead ends.
O.D.: "This "vague nostalgia and misplaced constitutionalism" are of course the defining beliefs of any neo-Confederates and neo-Confederate organization.."
V.O.: Which is why they have never and will never go anywhere. If they understood something about meta-politics (a strong point for "European New Right" and Revolutionary Conservative types) they could realize what faults hindered the old order and that the essence of what they really values is, or should be any way, the Nation Organic rather then some institutionalism that can never outlive the agrarian society that created it (although Agrarianism could serve as a starting point for an anti-capitalist alternative that helps their cause).
O.D.: ".. as it was to some extent of the Confederacy itself."
V.O.: Not really, the original Confederates had sense enough to understand the place of the order they defend with the context of an Organic weltanschauung. Modern neo-confederates are often neo - cons with their endless piffle about the evils of racism, culture sans race and quasi libertarian pablum. Others are the domestic American equivalent the Third Reich costume fetish set. It seems to me that a small percentage are actually deserving of the legacy left by the idealism of the CSA.
O.D.: "One feels compelled at some extent to respect this legacy, as one at the some times recognizes the need to diplomatically tell people that in some respects its time to move on. That's always been the dualism of Southern nationalists - even David Duke comes vaguely to mind."
V.O.: One either realizes the core element of the folkish weltanschauung and seeks to give it modern validity via new strategies for promoting that essence rather then the associated imagery and an institutionalism unsuited to the current era or one can see the demise of their Traditionalism. American paleos remind me of the Reactionaries ( I don't mean that as a slur) on the continent that wish for a return to feudal society and still keep the discourse of the Ancient Regime with no awareness that such a world view is not sustainable except via Pol Pot style revolution which they are unsuited and incapable of promoting. At one time I flirted with such escapism but gave it up quickly as those circles have never gone anywhere within living memory and never will again.
O.D.: My only desire is to understand a little more the general lack of recognition of the large amount of material coming from Dr. Francis, and his theories. One can understand it of course coming from posturers and polemicists like Linder, but to hear what seems occasionally on a superficial level the same dismissal of Dr. Francis from you is something I still don't fully understand.
This is especially puzzling since it would seem Dr. Francis shares so many of the same criticisms of mainstream paleo-conservatives, i.e. their "vague nostalgia and misplaced constitutionalism", along with their lack of a comprehensive alternative and concrete plan of political mobilization and action as you.
My signature contains a succinct description of middle American radicalism, albeit in the form of a critique. If you like I can put some other source materials together and start a thread on it shortly if you think some people are likely to read these and be swayed by them, although Francis certainly isn't a new topic here."
V.O.: I am open to hearing what Dr. Francis has to say, outside of his popular articles, but I do have some real reservations about the man. So please do put up a thread that you think would address my concerns expressed about him based upon his writings. In part this goes back to his shutting down SFOL which seemed very cowardly although I have no interest in going over that again. I was more then a little disturbed by the AmRen article he wrote in which he rejected separatism. Also, while rejects globalism, which is obviously good, he has not come out in favour of any real alternative to capitalism which obviously gives rise to it and destroys societal cohesion within an advanced, industrial context which is what's been the rule for the at least 2 generations. Obviously, I favour guildist/distributalist outlook which I have covered in some detail before although I am open to the less statist forms of syndicalism and corporatism has I don't trust concentrated state power. Again, my books and articles pretty well cover those topics. I Quote:
I also note that they have no larger ideological structure to put in context with other then the vague nostalgia and misplaced constitutionalism I addressed so often before.
Il Ragno: "Well, it's very specific and clearly-delineated nostalgia, for one thing. And I can think of nothing more innately radical at this point in time than strict constitutionalism. It's so radical a notion that I believe you'll see an NS America before you'd see a return to the original US Constitution enforced with anything beyond lip service and platitudes. Too many profitable applecarts would be turned over and smashed flat were THAT ever to occur."
V.O.: While it certainly is radical to wish that the clock could be turned back the era of one's choosing (ex the old South, the Old West, the ââ¬Ë50s, the NSDAP era etc) such fantasies are at best silly but most often counter productive in the extreme because they fail to realize that any era a reflection of historical, technological and demographic circumstance and the institutionalism of those eras vanishes when the conditions change. What really matters is the folkish core which made those things possible and allow for the creation of a new society that reflects substance of one's Traditionalism, although clearly not the form, providing the salubrious life styles we aspire to provide for our children. If you read Hayek's thoughts on the limitations of constitutionalism and Pareto's theory of Elite Degeneration you'll see why legalistic theories can't outlive the societal conditions that created them although some aspects of their principles can be restore during a national resurgence. As is often the case, I need to point out that Nation Socialism has always been much more the NSDAP era and that I adhere to other incarnations has having more relevance to the current era. See my comments below to T.D. and A.Y. for clarification.
Anti Yuppie: Triskelion has correctly identified the greatest failure of paleo conservatism. Regardless of how good their criticisms of the establishment may be, most paleo conservatives shy away from offering a concrete alternative, and when they do, it is usually some laughable empty slogan (see below) about "small government" or "returning to the constitution." Sam Francis's contribution is valuable insofar as he began to articulate "Middle American Radicalism" (basically, a right-wing populist managerial state as an alternative to a left-plutocratic managerial state) in some of his writings, only to return to Fleming-style rhetoric in some of his columns and Chronicles pieces. Say what you like, but at least the hardcore racialists and National Socialists offer a concrete and (at least in theory) workable alternative based on a relatively modern model.
V.O.: Mindless sloganeering never and never will serve as a basis for anti genuine alternative, left, right or other wise, to the current order and yet not much more is to be found in either the Hollywood Nazi set or mainstream paleo - cons which is why their profound irrelevance is so well deserved. While I am no fan of the managerial state (it smacks to much of DeMan's Plannism for my tastes) and I favour a decentralized alternative to capitalism I will admit that it a viable option in certain times and places. I doubt that a managerial state will ever hold much appeal to most Americans as even the far left their has a strong decentralizing streak if far from a consistent one. I have also seen plenty of the of the substanceless Flemming style stuff come from Dr. Francis which also makes me leery of him.
Your comments about the unreality of the constitutional mind set are spot and apply equally well to the farce that is "National"Anarchism.
Texas Dissident: [Quote] Originally Posted by AntiYuppie Say what you like, but at least the hardcore racialists and National Socialists offer a concrete and (at least in theory) workable alternative based on a relatively modern model.
"Which have a zero chance of being implemented here in the States. Not focusing solely on the two examples you mention, as one could easily put communism or pure libertarianism in the same boat, but dogmatic political ideologies will never enjoy wide-spread appeal here. At least for the foreseeable future.
"This is not Europe, thank heavens. The American mind is of a different mentality than what one finds overseas and notions of freedom, independence, individuality and self-reliance are still too much a part of our psyche to submit to some overt, collective political movement. Those roots are European and America was born out of the rejection of all that."
V.O.: I assume that your referring to the reality that the Third Reich fetish set and race hater types found in the mis named "movement" found in the states. Your right that those kinds of tendencies have never and will never go anywhere. On the other hand, the decentralized politics and the regional cultures of your country are ideally suited for a decentralized form of a folkish state which can go by a great many labels, including a broadly defined National Socialism, is a very viable concept because such a vision is fully suited to American Traditionalism. Obviously, my entire ideological makeup would reject out of hand mere mimicry of the theories or practice of any foreign state/regime/theory in the U.S. yet I see no reason at all why elements and lessons from else where can't be partly accepted in the states.
I would point out for example that the "New Right" types here are correct that capitalism within the industrial era has been devastating to traditional societal arrangements and that it's current role as a stalwart of globalism is perfectly predictable. I assume you know that like most American "rightists" I object to statism which is why I favour economic decentralization. I would point out to you that Catholic Social doctrine, distributalism, guildism and some forms of National Syndicalism all provide a viable and proven alternative to globalism via capitalism or state socialism and that American Agrarianism provides a fine starting point for forming a domestic version of those schools. I will also point out that those schools are more compatible with traditional Christian ethics then is modern capitalism (the old style of which can't exist in today's technological climate) which is why ardent Christians have always been at fore front of promoting those doctrines even when they are advanced by non clerical parties.
In any case, your notion of "to submit to some overt, collective political movement" is noting more then a Hollywood portrayal of what nationalism is all about. As mentioned above, political and economic decentralization are fully consistent with racialism as is easily seen in my writings and those I refer to. In fact, I and the schools of thought I support would emphasis that rigid authoritarianism places the state above society and usually inhibits Traditionalism as a result.
The problem however is that the American propensity to see the world in terms of a Libertarian dialectical struggle between raw state power and atomistic individualism is fatally flawed because the primacy of either results in the suppression of societal values and concerns which in turn destroys the basis needed for the survival of Traditionalism. I hasten to add that the atomistic individualism which is at the core what is so often misconstrued as conservatism makes societal cohesion on the basis of anything but crass materialism impossible. The societal disintegration engendered by an excessive emphasis upon individualism is what makes the destructive societal effects of capitalism, and hence globalism, possible. It also destroyed racial solidarity in your country which made it possible for the ascension of the alien jew and racial chaos possible. In the end, the preservation of the things that you, Okie and all other paleos hold dear can only be secured in the current era by a society that treasures societal cohesion and that can only come institutions that regulate without recourse to excess centralization by the state or private capitol. My realization of that fact has lead to my present economic/social framework. If you want I can refer you to plenty of books on these matters and I will again emphasis that such prescriptions are fully compatible with traditional Christian notions.
T.D.: "Personally, I don't see the need for dogmatic, point-by-point political and social platforms, where slight deviations from the collective herd are denounced and excommunicated. I wouldn't want any part of something like that. Granted we have much to do to clean our house, but I still believe in the supremacy of a constitutional republic."
V.O.: Agreed. But for the reasons A.Y. mentioned you will never see a return to the constitutionalism of your ancestors because the societal conditions are no more able to return, even with full repatriation of all racial aliens, then the NSDAP of ââ¬Ë33 is able to make a come back in modern Germany. What matters is preserving the essence of an ideal, if not the form, and the folk that created it.
Perun: Excellent comments. You made the point better then I could.
2003-10-24 22:35 | User Profile
>>>As to the broader issues you raise, namely, American individualism and our cultural divide from Europe, one might argue that these are weaknesses rather than strengths
As de Tocqueville so succinctly pointed out, extreme individualism is a weakness because it isolates all the "individuals" from one another, and individuals are most at risk to being tyrannized when they are atomized and divided by an organized and determined collective.