← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust

A Conservative No More - The tribal politics of Pat Buchanan

Thread ID: 10811 | Posts: 153 | Started: 2003-10-29

Okiereddust [OP]

2003-10-29 05:21 | User Profile

[url=http://www.nationalreview.com/11oct99/ponnuru101199.html]National Review[/url]

PATRICK J. Buchanan's impending departure from the Republican party is attracting interest as the only surprise of the political season. The real surprise is that it took him so long. It has been clear for some time that Buchanan's ideological wanderings have taken him far from the heartland of the Republican party and the conservative movement. As early as 1992, William McGurn was warning in these pages that while Buchanan described his presidential campaign as a "theological debate," "many a voice that starts off promising reformation finds itself swept along into schism."

Buchanan's intellectual fellow travelers certainly foresaw the possibility of such a schism; indeed, they egged it on. In a March 1996 column, Samuel Francis wrote that he had been telling Buchanan for years that his "refusal to break even more definitely with a more conventional conservative identity and with the Republican Party . . . is a serious error." Buchanan's identification as a Republican and a conservative, Francis continued, "dilutes and deflects the radicalism of the message."

That message has been diluted as well by some of Buchanan's conservative fans. They persist in seeing him as a comrade-in-arms. They insult him by pretending that his apparent heterodoxies aren't meant seriously. Some of them still deny even that he is a protectionist. He is merely a "fair trader," they say, though his book The Great Betrayal advocates that America 1) destroy the institutions that have promoted free trade since World War II; 2) impose across-the-board 15 percent tariffs on products from every country on earth, with the possible exception of Canada; and 3) impose heavy additional tariffs on poor countries. Buchanan's protectionism, like his near- isolationism, might not matter were it a mere idiosyncrasy. Both positions have conservative pedigrees. His promise to run both a trade surplus and an investment surplus Ã¢â¬â which is impossible as a matter of simple math, not just theory Ã¢â¬â might be passed off as a quaint example of the literary intellectual's indifference to economics. (Early in his poignant memoir, Right from the Beginning, Buchanan remarks that he agrees with the wit who said that "voodoo economics" is a redundancy.) His view that Hitler and Stalin should have been left alone to duke it out might be a stimulating provocation.

But Buchanan's views on trade and foreign policy have become central to his politics; it's hard to dismiss them as incidental to Buchananism, now that he has written a book on each and apparently decided to bolt the Republican party because of them. He talks more about these views than he does about immigration control, where he would have a better case. Moreover, as Buchanan's conservative critics predicted, his shift on trade has led him inexorably to the left on domestic matters.

In The Great Betrayal, Buchanan compares free markets to the law of the jungle and writes, "Better the occasional sins of a government acting out of the spirit of charity than the constant omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference." Conservatives who grind their teeth every time George W. Bush uses his favorite adjective should remember that Buchanan was the very first compassionate conservative Ã¢â¬â "I may charge him with plagiarism," he says. Buchanan has been slow to grasp the full implications of his new political stance. He still, for instance, opposes increasing the minimum wage. But his "conservatism of the heart" has moved him to favor higher unemployment benefits, to support a cap on executive pay, and to condemn Republicans' brave efforts in 1995 to curb the growth of Medicare.

Buchanan almost never talks about cutting government any more, certainly not about ending specific programs or programs that benefit the middle class. It is true that most Republicans these days share this reticence. But only Buchanan says that advocates of the flat tax have spent too much time with "the boys down at the yacht basin." Not even liberal Democrats bash corporations with his gusto, deploring as he does their greed, questioning their loyalty, and second-guessing their decisions. (For all the anti-corporate rhetoric, of course, a Buchananite economic policy would in practice involve an alliance between Big Government, Big Business, and Big Labor Ã¢â¬â as every country that has tried to implement such a policy has found out.)

THE LAST NIXONIAN This is not the conservatism of Ronald Reagan, or Barry Goldwater, or William F. Buckley Jr. It is not even, as is so often incorrectly said, a revival of Robert Taft Republicanism: Taft didn't play to the union halls, and Medicare would have horrified him. Every writer creates his own precursors, wrote Borges, and Buchanan seems to have taken the remark too literally: He likes to imagine that his views are the same as those of the Founders, as though Hamilton's nuanced and moderate protectionism were the same as his blunderbuss kind. No, his politics are a new phenomenon.

In his book Revolution from the Middle, Francis argues that Buchananism, unlike conventional conservatism, has a social base: the "Middle American Radicals" (MARs), lower-middle-class whites who feel culturally and economically dispossessed. For these people, the trouble with the federal government is not that it is too big but that it is run by elites who are disloyal to them. Writes Francis: "Only Buchanan managed to capture the strange synthesis of right and left that characterizes the political beliefs of MARs Ã¢â¬â their combination of culturally conservative moral and social beliefs with support for economically liberal policies such as Medicare, Social Security, unemployment benefits, and economic nationalism and protectionism."

Conservatives tend to place a lot of emphasis, maybe too much, on the idea that ideas have consequences. They hoist their ideas up the flagpole and then see who salutes. Buchananism puts its idealized social base first, and lets it drive everything else. For Buchanan, loyalty to the tribe trumps any idea. On this point at least, Buchanan may justly claim not to have changed his views. His recent, tentative proposal that elite universities institute quotas for Italian-Americans builds on an idea first expressed in his 1975 book Conservative Votes, Liberal Victories. Buchananism is a form of identity politics for white people Ã¢â¬â and becomes more worrisome as it is married to collectivism.

If Buchananism is a novelty as ideology, it does have an antecedent as political strategy. Buchanan's mentor, Richard Nixon, succeeded in winning over the same constituency Ã¢â¬â it was then known as the (George) Wallace vote Ã¢â¬â by exploiting its cultural grievances while tacking left on the size and role of government. Buchanan wants to recreate Nixon's coalition of 1972. Just as Nixon got AFL-CIO president George Meany not to oppose him, so Buchanan is reportedly courting Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa Jr. to be his running mate. But the Nixon coalition was not a conservative coalition, as Nixon's policies amply proved.

Wage and price controls, the EPA, quotas, arms control Ã¢â¬â these just begin the list of Nixon's statist-liberal policies. Lyndon Johnson created the Great Society, but Richard Nixon funded it. M. Stanton Evans, the conservative journalist, cracked at the time that he had only two objections to the Nixon administration: its foreign policy and its domestic policy. Watergate, he said, was the only thing Nixon had done that he liked. Now that the passions of Watergate have receded, observers of all political persuasions are coming to recognize that Nixon achieved more for liberalism than any of his successors.

It must have become increasingly clear to Buchanan that the Nixon coalition could no longer be built from within the GOP. The exit polls from the Republican primaries of 1996 suggest that he would have been better off running as a Reaganite. Buchanan barely won the self-described "very conservative" vote and got crushed among voters who care primarily about taxes, i.e., economic conservatives; he didn't get any more independents and Democrats to vote for him in the primaries than Bob Dole did. Voters who cared about trade were heavily against Buchanan on the west coast, and leaned toward him only slightly elsewhere.

IN THE BEGINNING, ABORTION What actually motivated the Buchanan brigades to pick up their pitchforks was, above all, their opposition to abortion. Buchanan won the 1996 New Hampshire primary because 64 percent of those voters whose top issue was abortion rallied to him. These pro-lifers must now be astonished to learn that Buchanan, in pursuit of a national ticket and $12.6 million in federal matching funds, cares more about trade and foreign policy than he does about abortion. He is apparently willing to join a pro-choice party and to risk helping the Democrats appoint two or three more Supreme Court justices in a post-Clinton administration.But even Christian conservatives, many of whom are also economic conservatives, have deserted him. Buchanan's vote peaked his first time out: He has never equaled his showing in February 1992, when he won 37 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary. There were, of course, non-ideological reasons for Buchanan's subsequent burnouts. To begin with, he was surprisingly lackadaisical about politics for someone who wants to reshape it. After losing in 1996, Buchanan went back to CNN; Steve Forbes, by contrast, never left the hustings. Gary Bauer has raised money for other candidates; Buchanan has done nothing to nurture a like- minded cadre in Congress. Buchanan's showing in the Iowa straw poll in August Ã¢â¬â Bauer placed higher Ã¢â¬â underlined the point that he has no future in the Republican party. The most recent poll shows him with the backing of only 3 percent of Republican voters, and he has the support of no acknowledged conservative figure.

NOWHERE MAN Does he have a future outside the GOP? It's going to be difficult to create such a coalition as Buchanan envisions. The world has changed since the Nixon administration: The workers he wants to court are now more likely to be watching the stock market than to be joining a strike. The Reform party poses challenges of its own. Its lack of ideology and structure make it vulnerable to a Buchanan takeover Ã¢â¬â he's more organized than it is Ã¢â¬â but these same qualities would make it hard for him to run an ideological campaign.

There is also the matter of Buchanan's vestigial moral conservatism. Within one week, Buchanan could be found pledging both to keep fighting for the unborn and to downplay such issues in order to keep secular-minded Reform voters with him. As Francis, always a more clear-headed theorist of Buchananism than Buchanan himself, puts it: "Religion is not the most effective political and ideological vehicle for expressing and publicly vindicating the frustrations that animate the Middle American Revolution because the Christianity of the right simply doesn't encompass very many Middle American interests." This is quite correct in theory: A mass movement based on anger and resentment, let alone the racial themes that animate Francis, is not likely to be big on the brotherhood of man. But since Christian conservatives rather than Middle American Radicals have in fact made up Buchanan's base, the candidate seems to be hunting where the ducks aren't.

One presumes that Buchanan actually believes that his peasants will be able to storm the White House, even if they have not been able to dislodge the barons and baronesses of the GOP. Again, the reality will be different: His campaign will simply demonstrate further the impossibility of his politics in modern America. This is true almost regardless of the final tally. If the Democrats win because of his presence in the race, Republicans may feel they must move in his direction. But any such Republican party would likely be a rump party: Like George McGovern, Buchanan would have ascended to the leadership of a minority party by ejecting a constituency of a majority party Ã¢â¬â in this case, economic conservatives. He would remake the Right at the cost of letting the Left remake the country. If, on the other hand, the Republicans win with a healthy majority, Buchanan will be marginalized.

It would be folly to try to predict how well Buchanan would do in a general election. Can his belief that Americans are decadent for wanting to be able to buy fruit out of season withstand political scrutiny? How many voters will be moved by his terrific rhetorical talents? Will he actually get the Reform nomination at all?

Whether Buchanan deserves any support from conservatives Ã¢â¬â that should be an easier question.Conservatism is a house with many mansions. But for more than four decades, whatever their philosophical first principles, conservatives have agreed on a basic program: an anti-totalitarian foreign policy, at once nationalist and internationalist; free markets and limited government at home; and moral traditionalism. Buchanan is at war with the first two planks of this platform, and he is no longer reliable even on the moral issues, yielding as he has to other priorities. Where conservatives attribute our burgeoning underclass to moral breakdown, he blames capitalism. He embraces relativism abroad: Totalitarian, nationalist dictatorships are a natural outgrowth of Arab culture. And he is willing to risk a permanently pro-abortion Supreme Court on a lark.

During the '80s, conservatives used to groan every time Kevin Phillips was quoted as a "conservative" saying something snippy about Ronald Reagan. They joked that he had acquired a new first name, "Even," as in, "Even Kevin Phillips opposes these tax cuts." Like Buchanan, Phillips is an old Nixon hand who decided at some point that exploiting cultural resentments and seeing various elites get their comeuppance mattered more than expanding freedom. The difference is that letting Buchanan continue to describe himself as a conservative would be not just irritating but destructive. He is in no important sense a conservative any more. Let his failure be his alone.

Texas Dissident

2003-10-29 07:10 | User Profile

Thanks for posting this old one, Okie. I have to admit that I'm still very much attracted to the greater ideology or political platform the author here terms "Buchananism" in his effort to refute it. The first counter to Francis' Buchananism that immediately comes to mind though is numbers. Simply put, we don't have them anymore and with immigration running virtually unchecked, our percentage of the populace diminishes with literally each passing day. So how does a diminishing minority advance an agenda in the reality of growing opposition, indifferent to said agenda or even outright hostile? To my mind the minority isolates key areas of cultural or political persuasion that enjoy a greater sympathy from what we might term the 'mainstream', joins up and begins the long march (?) to using those movements towards their own ends.

Okiereddust

2003-10-29 08:09 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]So how does a diminishing minority advance an agenda in the reality of growing opposition, indifferent to said agenda or even outright hostile?

Gee, that's a really tough question, which I doubt can be answered. Guess whites are all destined to end up like Jews, oppressed and powerless minorities;)

Seriously, that's MacDonalds conclusion. Eventually whites will start to mimic jewish strategies, and start to show some of the great adaptility they have done.

To my mind the minority isolates key areas of cultural or political persuasion that enjoy a greater sympathy from what we might term the 'mainstream', joins up and begins the long march (?) to using those movements towards their own ends.[/QUOTE]

Just as long as it doesn't sond like the "broad tent" the GOP is always talking about.

All Old Right

2003-10-29 12:48 | User Profile

deleted by AOR

jay

2003-10-29 15:44 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]. The first counter to Francis' Buchananism that immediately comes to mind though is numbers. Simply put, we don't have them anymore and with immigration running virtually unchecked, our percentage of the populace diminishes with literally each passing day. So how does a diminishing minority advance an agenda in the reality of growing opposition, indifferent to said agenda or even outright hostile? [/QUOTE]

That's the million dollar question, and the central theme of Buchanan's latest book, "Death of the West" In it, you'll see he talks about numbers constantly: differential birthrates, mass immigration, ageing of Europe. We all know what he means - he's sounding the clarion call to whites that the numbers are tipping rapidly.

Start screwing - or something to that nature. In the past, we didn't care how often Botswanans bred, b/c they died out so rapidly. But now, it matters b/c they are imported here and put on the GOVT dole. In the Bell Curve, Herrnstein makes a point that has haunted me for years:

"If one group reproduces every 20 years, and the other every 30 years, within 60 years the first group has 3 generations while the second has only 2."

Think about that for a minute.

-Jay

Texas Dissident

2003-10-29 16:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Like Buchanan, Phillips is an old Nixon hand who decided at some point that exploiting cultural resentments and seeing various elites get their comeuppance mattered more than expanding freedom.[/QUOTE]

Sounds good to me. Where do I sign up?

"Expanding freedom"....these NR neo-cons are so damned cocksure it will be a great day seeing them get their comeuppance, believe me. It certainly keeps me motivated.

MadScienceType

2003-10-29 16:37 | User Profile

But now, it matters b/c they are imported here and put on the GOVT dole.

Though it may be some small confort, the GOVT dole, like Whites, is finite. Once the number of Whites slips below a certain level (after all, that's who pays the lion's share into Uncle Schmuel's coffers) the dole will no longer exist, and African numbers will revert to their pre-Western-interference levels through attrition, disease, starvation, what have you.

I know I complained about a worse-is-better outlook on another thread, but I would rather have a catastrophe that left a little White clay to work with (though I would hate to see Camp of the Saints writ worldwide) than have a larger number of aracial Whites tethered forever to Uncle Schmuel's yoke, always miserable and always on the tipping point of collapse, kind of like the socialist democracies of Europe. Of course immigration is rapidly making even those experiments in egalitarianism teeter on the brink, so who knows?

That's not to say we shouldn't make every effort to avert catastrophe and awaken our kinsmen, but given a choice between the two...

One thing to look at is the German economic resurgence of the '30s and possibly make a similar plan an integral part of any populist platform, of course not highlighting from where the ideas originated. Hitler looked around for anything valuable to tie the value of the DM to, as I'm sure y'all are aware and settled on Gemany's coal reserves. Certainly, we in the U.S. have got to have something of concrete worth (agriculture alone and the products of the remnants of our manufacturing base come to mind) to trade in order to maintain a stable economy besides the "full faith and credit of the U.S. government" which is rapidly vanishing anyway. The immigration issue is one where both parties are vulnerable, very vulnerable and even Joe Freeper is getting pissed about it, if the reaction to the cosmetic WalMart raids of last week is any indication. Pretty soon, the American blue-collar workforce, along with a large portion of the white-collar crowd are gonna find themselves thrown over the side of our globalist lifeboat (if they haven't been already) and they're gonna be plenty pissed about it. The charges of "racism" and "isolationism" are starting to lose their sting where the invasion is concerned and we desperately need a realistic populist structure in place to take advantage of this, possibly on the model of the BNP, but more as a "guerilla" party, not in the military sense, but as a vessel outside the main political appratus to serve as a repository for populist sentiment and justified anger. Working inside the system for Fed campaign dollars or even power in the two-party winner-take-all is an exercise in self-deception, as the stillborn "alternatives" to the Dems and GOP have shown. Nope, deligitimization of both parties, especially the GOP, should be a major goal, though there is always the danger of being declared a "terrorist" organization or somesuch once the situation becomes truly desperate. Also, and I can't stress this enough, there needs to be a system of party/organizational disciplince, to weed out the crazies, instigators, costume fetishists, etc. and keep the central message intact. Maybe that's delving dangerously close to the "Fueherprinzip" that Okie abhors. I don't know that for sure, but I do know we are rapidly running out of time and options.

I don't wanna fiddle too much while L.A. burns, if you know what I mean.

Mithras

2003-10-29 16:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Thanks for posting this old one, Okie. I have to admit that I'm still very much attracted to the greater ideology or political platform the author here terms "Buchananism" in his effort to refute it. The first counter to Francis' Buchananism that immediately comes to mind though is numbers. Simply put, we don't have them anymore and with immigration running virtually unchecked, our percentage of the populace diminishes with literally each passing day. So how does a diminishing minority advance an agenda in the reality of growing opposition, indifferent to said agenda or even outright hostile? To my mind the minority isolates key areas of cultural or political persuasion that enjoy a greater sympathy from what we might term the 'mainstream', joins up and begins the long march (?) to using those movements towards their own ends.[/QUOTE]

Your question is easy to answer but hard to do. What is not mentioned in the article is that the mainstream is not "mainstream." Only 40% of the registered voters vote. The majority therefore is in the 60% who don't vote primarily for that no party in the US represents their interests. We are therefore perceived as a minority and will be doomed to failure so long as there is not a real and traditional rightwing party to represent us and to fight for us. The folkists in the US must -- I repeat-- must throw all of their efforts and resources into a single respectable party on a populist front somewhat like the America First Party--if not this party itself. Otherwise you have no movement, just a bunch of disorganized racialists going off into different directions or flyering for opinion that will just dissipate into thin air.

jay

2003-10-30 02:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MadScienceType]The immigration issue is one where both parties are vulnerable, very vulnerable and even Joe Freeper is getting pissed about it, if the reaction to the cosmetic WalMart raids of last week is any indication. Pretty soon, the American blue-collar workforce, along with a large portion of the white-collar crowd are gonna find themselves thrown over the side of our globalist lifeboat (if they haven't been already) and they're gonna be plenty pissed about it. The charges of "racism" and "isolationism" are starting to lose their sting where the invasion is concerned and we desperately need a realistic populist structure in place to take advantage of this, possibly on the model of the BNP, but more as a "guerilla" party, not in the military sense, but as a vessel outside the main political appratus to serve as a repository for populist sentiment and justified anger. .[/QUOTE]

Excellent points, I can't disagree one bit. I was a Bushie voter in 2000, but I was feeling lots of doubts that summer b/c I began to read Sam Francis' columns. That led me to Vdare.com, and the rest is history. Now, Buchanan is a liberal to me.

I always tell people: "Don't laugh at me. I was a Bush voter in 2000. Look how fast I changed." That makes people wonder.

-Jay

Franco

2003-10-30 03:12 | User Profile

I have said it before and I say it again: the Buchananites can daydream about a return of Buchananism, but in the end our Western culture comes from RACE. The artwork, the literature, the ideas, it all comes [and came] from WHITE people.

The end of White people = the end of White culture = the end of the West. Period. All other topics are moot.

:mellow:

Centinel

2003-10-30 03:32 | User Profile

Buchananism is a form of identity politics for white people

And the problem with this is....?

Texas Dissident

2003-10-30 07:52 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]I have said it before and I say it again: the Buchananites can daydream about a return of Buchananism, but in the end our Western culture comes from RACE. The artwork, the literature, the ideas, it all comes [and came] from WHITE people....[/QUOTE]

enlightened by Christianity.

The end of White, Christian people = the end of White, Christian culture = the end of the West. Period.

Okiereddust

2003-10-30 16:45 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MadScienceType]Nope, deligitimization of both parties, especially the GOP, should be a major goal, though there is always the danger of being declared a "terrorist" organization or somesuch once the situation becomes truly desperate. Also, and I can't stress this enough, there needs to be a system of party/organizational disciplince, to weed out the crazies, instigators, costume fetishists, etc. and keep the central message intact. Maybe that's delving dangerously close to the "Fueherprinzip" that Okie abhors. I don't know that for sure, but I do know we are rapidly running out of time and options.

I don't wanna fiddle too much while L.A. burns, if you know what I mean.[/QUOTE] Well use of the word "fuehrerprinzip" is certainly part of the rhetoric of the costume fetish set. Basically what we have with the WN's of today is a group that has the mental and verbal rigidity (re: use of words like "fuehrerprinzip") of a bunch of senile Nazi's, but the organizational instincts, tactics and success of anarchists.

Something like the reverse would be definitely helpful, but all organizational models must be flexible and capable of great adaptation, just like jewish strategies have evinced over the ages.

na Gaeil is gile

2003-10-30 17:15 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Well use of the word "fuehrerprinzip" is certainly part of the rhetoric of the costume fetish set. Basically what we have with the WN's of today is a group that has the mental and verbal rigidity (re: use of words like "fuehrerprinzip") of a bunch of senile Nazi's, but the organizational instincts, tactics and success of anarchists.

Something like the reverse would be definitely helpful, but all organizational models must be flexible and capable of great adaptation, just like jewish strategies have evinced over the ages.[/QUOTE] Sure, to succeed any political organisation must be able to move a broad a base of people forward as possible. Ideological rigidity is always a killer.

A huge factor in the cultural MarxistÃ¢â¬â¢s success is the fact they never presented a single monolithic organisation or political block which could be targeted and toppled. They were a thousand tiny mosquitoes buzzing here and there sucking the life blood of a lumbering elephant.

Whites arenÃ¢â¬â¢t great on agreeing on anything anyway but what we may be seeing emerging with the likes of OD, NAAWP, VDARE, AMREN and VNN is the vanguard of our thousand mosquitoes.

Ruffin

2003-10-30 17:31 | User Profile

On the other hand.....

The Swastika

The political drones, profiteers, prostitutes and cowards scoot with their tails between their legs from this hooked cross, as the devil does from holy water.

On the other hand, the Swastika has an irresistible attraction for the kind of daring, bold, devil-may-care fighting young men we need. In America, most of them are simply "nigger-haters," because of their pure White man's instinct. When they learn the Jews part in the disgraceful Negro situation, they become "Nazis" in minutes. Then it is the work of only months until they also understand the deeper significance, the idealism, and the true aims of the Movement.

But even more important than these advantages, the blood-soaked Swastika has a supernatural effect on Jews.

It is after all only a few black lines - but it drives Jews out of their usual sly and calculating frame of mind and makes them hysterical and foolish. To them, it is not just the lines, but the awful threat of ruthless exposure, swift justice and terrible vengeance which their guilty consciences tell them they richly deserve. It is like a picture of the electric chair to a hunted murderer.

A calm, calculating Jew is the most dangerous beast on the face of the earth. By the exercise of his devilish, perverted but brilliant reason, the Jew has almost mastered all the rest of us. But a hysterical, screaming Jew, out of his mind with hate and fear of punishment for his crimes, is helpless putty in the hands of a calculating National Socialist.

We have proved this time and again - when Jewish councils have spent millions of dollars to spread the word among Jews to ignore us. But the hordes of guilty little sinners can't do it! When they see that Swastika and hear us praising Adolf Hitler and describing the gas chambers for traitors, they become the screaming, wild ghetto Jews who have eternally blown up their victories at the last moment by their insane passions of hate and revenge.

The result is the lifeblood of a political movement: publicity!

In spite of the Jewish domination of all the media of public information, the parading of Swastikas and National Socialists in public streets cannot be hidden or ignored without giving the game away. They can suppress the news, to be sure. But then too many people realize their press power and censorship.

And when the young Movement is able to force publication of its existence on the giant national TV networks, in magazines, press, etc., - it serves as a clarion call to the frustrated millions who are looking for such a movement. It is only thus that we have been able to contact thousands of people all over the world who have never before been in any "patriot" outfit, but couldn't resist the American Nazi Party and the World Union of National Socialists.

The Swastika and Hitler, far from being millstones, are actually the answer to the eternal problem of the "right-wing" - money!

When you don't have money for paper, meeting halls, etc., - as our side never does - you can go into the streets and march and distribute homemade handbills and picket - for nothing. The Jews go wild, attack - and you then have free use of millions of dollars worth of Jewish TV, newspapers, magazines, etc.! Of course, you may get bloodied and have to sit in jail awhile recuperating. But this is a small price to pay for the astonishing results.

In addition to the free publicity attendant on open operation as a "Nazi," you also find that the very audacity of the thing will attract the young fighting men you need, even though they know nothing and care less about the politics of the business. They admire raw courage and daring. Later, when they have come to know the facts a little better, they will fight for ideals and the White man. But until then, these valuable protectors of your free speech will fight just for fun.

Above all, the Swastika will save you from the fundamental error of the "right-wing" - that sweet reason will change the world and save us from the Jewish tyrants.

Reason is still an infant in human affairs, a precious and rare development found in the mutational brains of an infinitesimal minority of Homo Sapiens. And even the few geniuses able to exercise genuine, independent reason are almost entirely incapable of acting in accordance with the dictates of that reason - which is one of the reasons so many of them end up as "failures" in a world which does not appreciate them or their reason.

It is FORCE, POWER, STRENGTH which rules the world, from the ebb and flow of the tides to the decision of your neighbor to join the Rotary. Only a negligible fringe of oddball humans "changes its mind" as a result of being convinced by a superior argument. The overwhelming masses, including the masses of today's "intellectuals," change their minds only in order to conform. In other words, the minds of the vast majority always bow to the strongest opinion - the opinion which brings rewards and avoids punishments.

The "right-wing" examines its reasons and arguments and facts and finds them true and good - as they may be. They then become outraged that the slobs next door cannot see and appreciate this "rightness" and, very probably, throw them out of the house for preaching "hate."

But this is only as things are. The slobs will hold whatever opinion seems to show the most strength and will to power. They are completely, hopelessly female in their approach to "reason," and always, always prefer strength to "rightness."

When they say "no" to our Swastika and National Socialism, they are only the eternal female saying "no," but meaning: "If you accept my 'no,' then you are a weakling and have no right to my favors. Let us see if you have the manhood and strength and genius to make me say 'yes.'"

They "hate" us now because we are weak and powerless. All the reason in the world will never make them love us or our ideas in any guise, no matter how we try to sugar-coat them, until we COMMAND THEIR RESPECT AND ADMIRATION FOR OUR WILL, OUR GUTS, OUR FORCE! As stupid as they are, their instincts in smelling force and strength are still pure, and the attempt to sneak National Socialist ideas in the guise of "patriot" leagues and other nice, "safe" groups very properly repulses them as being the actions of cowards and sneaks.

To hell with the sneaky, "safer" approaches! They get us persecuted every bit as much as the direct, open approach, and they doom us to miserable, sneaking failure every time.

If we are to be the last of the White men who conquered the world; if we are finally to be overwhelmed by a pack of rats, let us at least face the death of our race as our ancestors faced their death - like MEN. Let us not crawl down amongst the rats begging for mercy or trying to out-sneak them and pretend to be rats ourselves!

Let us stand on the scaffold of history - if hang we must - like the martyrs of Nuremberg, tall and proud! Is life so sweet, is comfort so precious and a job in a Jewish counting house so sacred that we are afraid to grasp the mighty hand of ADOLF HITLER reaching down to us out of our glorious past? Again, to hell with sneaking and "safety"!

It is part of the Jews to be sneaky and sly. The genius of our people has ever been joyous strength, robust forcefulness, directness, manly courage and flaming heroism.

When the Jews, with their economic terrorism, jails, bullies and hangmen, scare the White man into laying down his cudgel and his open defiance, and goad him into trying to out-sneak Jewish tyranny, the Jews have completely emasculated the once-strong White man, and doomed him to dishonor and defeat. The White man can never win by sneaking.

In the dawn of Nordic civilization, lesser races used to cringe in their rude huts and pray: "Lord, save us from the fury of the men of the North!"

It was that kind of man who built Western civilization.

If civilization is now to be saved from the swarms of degenerate Jews, their cannibal accomplices and their unspeakably depraved "liberal" friends - it will be that kind of man who will save it - never sneaks!

George Lincoln Rockwell

Texas Dissident

2003-10-30 18:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ruffin]If civilization is now to be saved from the swarms of degenerate Jews, their cannibal accomplices and their unspeakably depraved "liberal" friends - it will be that kind of man who will save it - never sneaks!

George Lincoln Rockwell[/QUOTE]

And we all know how much success Rockwell enjoyed, Ruffin.

The swastika means about as much to me as the star of David, which is to say, not much. I do recognize it as being the symbol of those who shot at and killed a number of my kin, though.

Ruffin

2003-10-30 18:19 | User Profile

TD:

And we all know how much success Rockwell enjoyed, Ruffin.

Contrary to the prevailing wisdom that Birchite methods work better, I think, though I'm not certain, that more white people would be receptive to Rockwell today than ever before. Further removed from our "good war", a bigger picture is available, and it's backed up almost daily nowadays with evidence and public statements on Jewish rule.

I do recognize it as being the symbol of those who shot at and killed a number of my kin, though.

My kin as well. But remember, the killing wasn't brought to us, we took it to them, as Americans have been doing to their 'kin' since 1861. Odd, that Southern men aren't as offended by federal flags.

Franco

2003-10-30 22:11 | User Profile

Tex wrote:

The swastika means about as much to me as the star of David, which is to say, not much. I do recognize it as being the symbol of those who shot at and killed a number of my kin, though.

Tex, Tex, Tex. I though I had cured you of your Naziphobia. Guess I will have to work harder, heh, heh.

Tex, who is responsible for our brave boys going half-way around the world to fight the Germans [and Japs]? The part-Jew FDR and his 99%-Jewish cabal [1]. Yup. FDR set the stage for war with the Axis LONG before war came, in about 1933. Recall FDR getting angry about Japan/IndoChina while his Bolshevik buddies murdered millions. Things like that set the stage for war.

If anyone is at fault for a German or a Jap shooting at one of your relatives, it was our NWO/JWO, first headed by FDR and Co.

[1] FDR's Jewish cabal: [url]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/lettersOct-Nov03/102803wsifdrandjews.htm[/url]

Texas Dissident

2003-10-30 22:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Tex, Tex, Tex. I though I had cured you of your Naziphobia. Guess I will have to work harder, heh, heh.

If anyone is at fault for a German or a Jap shooting at one of your relatives, it was our NWO/JWO, first headed by FDR and Co. [/QUOTE]

Franco, where in my post did I mention anything about who was responsible for America's involvement in WWII? Having read Lindbergh's speeches and studied the America First campaign, I am fully aware of what led to Germany declaring war on the U.S. But please don't act as though the Nazis were completely innocent and pure as the wind driven snow. That doesn't wash, either.

My position is simple. I don't want to have a jewish cabal dictating our foreign policy. Likewise, I don't want to be a nazi and/or live under a nazi government. No thanks. I want America First.

As to what started this exchange, Ruffin's posting of Rockwell. Rockwell was a lunatic, as is his idea that Americans need to adopt the symbol of a long dead foreign regime and charge the white house. That's just completely counter-productive to everything some of us are trying to accomplish here.

Ruffin

2003-10-30 23:46 | User Profile

Lunatics like Rockwell are assassinated because nobody listens to them, right Tex? Conservatives like Buchanan otoh accomplish so much, as they live their lives out and are occasionally remembered for their groveling contradictions.

As for your contempt for things "foreign", wasn't Jesus a Jew?

Paraphrasing a great American wartime commander and thief, all conservatives have to feah is... feah itself.

Texas Dissident

2003-10-30 23:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ruffin]As for your contempt for things "foreign", wasn't Jesus a Jew? [/QUOTE]

Ruffin, I genuinely like the English, so I don't have contempt for things "foreign"....

Just nazis.

:thumbsup: :cowboy:

triskelion

2003-10-31 04:00 | User Profile

The notion that Buchanan is involved in "tribal politics" is absurd. After listening to that unprincipled Ã¢â¬ÅpitchforkÃ¢â¬Â plutocrat defend the last war against Europa as necessary and defensible for bringing Ã¢â¬ÅdemocracyÃ¢â¬Â and an end to homogeneity (an article about those comments were/are to be found on the neo-confederate Whittaker on line site although I heard them myself) pretty much showed him to be a fraud. His latter comments in which refutes Ã¢â¬ÅracismÃ¢â¬Â and defends the proposition that race is somehow separate from culture and that if the dispossession of Occidental America could be slowed down enough the miracle of assimilation would how make aliens into Americans it became very clear that he was no populist let alone a genuine conservative. Anyone that has the energy can did through the achieves and find the threads about the unpleasant realities of Buchanan. I simply canÃ¢â¬â¢t imagine why anyone thinks heÃ¢â¬â¢s a viable alternative to the anti-Occidental establishment in the states.

triskelion

2003-10-31 04:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Ruffin, I genuinely like the English, so I don't have contempt for things "foreign"....

Just nazis.

:thumbsup: :cowboy:[/QUOTE]

While I have pointed out my disagreements with using the NSDAP model in the current era as well as my disagreements/concerns with various aspects of that regime for a conservative to hold "nazis" in concept is simply unfathomable unless said conservative doesn't have a decent basis of knowledge about the regime but instead is only acquainted with atrocity propaganda from the same order that is currently destroying Occidental America. By contrast, a conservative should hold the FDR/Truman regime in contempt for it's roll destroying what remained of the old order in the states as well as getting your country into a major foreign war, propping up Stalin and the epic war crimes it committed/facilitated during and after the war.

To hold in contempt a regime that gave massive state backing to the Lutheran and Catholic churches, vigorously oppressed sexual deviance, stopped Stalin's planned invasion of Western Europa, stopped the rise of Stalinism in many European nations is for conservative seems odd at best. Give that the economic rise Germany experienced prior to the war under the NSDAP was one of the most amazing in history and that it was accompanied by both major technological innovation and the restoration of traditional mores and folkways without globalism or usury against the backdrop of Bolshevik revolution and profound societal decline and economic collapse your global condemnation is very perplexing.

When I see blanket condemnations of the NSDAP regime I note that they are never accompanied by any understanding/recognition of the achievements by that regime but rather they are a product of two generations of ham fisted propaganda and no understanding of the realistic alternatives that existed in the early thirties in Germany. I also note that those that "hold nazis in concept" seem to have no understanding of their ideology nor their accomplishments in any spheres that should interest conservatives. Instead, they assume that the establishment that they question with respect to most other issues is beyond reproach when it comes to regimes, ideologies and people within the Axis nations.

Franco

2003-10-31 04:36 | User Profile

Tex wrote:

Ruffin, I genuinely like the English, so I don't have contempt for things "foreign"....

Just nazis.

[sarcasm] Yes, let's just wipe out those bad ol' Nazis and leave the conserving-Western-culture to the Christians, with their all-humans-are-equal-even-Somali-Bantus dogma....yesiree, that'll save the West.... [end of sarcasm].

All's I knows is, Europe -- the cradle of the West in many ways -- would not be filled with Blacks and Browns if'n Hitler and Co. had not been wiped out by....us. Thanks, Uncle Schmuel...oops, I mean Uncle Sam.

Okiereddust

2003-10-31 04:51 | User Profile

[QUOTE=triskelion]The notion that Buchanan is involved in "tribal politics" is absurd. After listening to that unprincipled Ã¢â¬ÅpitchforkÃ¢â¬Â plutocrat defend the last war against Europa as necessary and defensible for bringing Ã¢â¬ÅdemocracyÃ¢â¬Â and an end to homogeneity (an article about those comments were/are to be found on the neo-confederate Whittaker on line site although I heard them myself) pretty much showed him to be a fraud.

Obviously you are pretending never to have heard of "A Republic Not An Empire" in which he said the war against Germany was not necessary, which drew tremendous heat from the press, and probably broke up his Reform Party bid. You, along with the VNNers, who are always quick to blame Buchanan for his failure in 2000, never seem to give credit to Pat for this, much less venture any persnal responsibility for Pat's failures on some of the statements he's made where he's actually gone out of his way to rapproach to your position, more than some of us seems wise.

Of course these remarks never led any of these peopleto ever give Pat any credit. Instead they go out of his way to nitpick Pat to death. It seems they all have taken some deathbed oath to Odin "never say anything good about Pat Buchanan".

If Pat is backtracking now a little bit, I can understand it. The original remarks have never done him any good - in fact I get the impression racialists wish he'd never made them, as they did so much harm to their one-sided "we are more racist-rightous than Pat".

It also wouldn't surprise me if he's acquired quite a bit of wariness of the far-right over the years. One that seems quite understandable.

You and the VNNers have an irrational Buchanan obsession. If you spent have the time fighting against multiculturalism and leftism as you did fear-mongering about Buchananism or dicing paleoconservatives, we might not be approaching the catastrophe from multiculturalist leftism you otherwise express so much worry about.

Franco

2003-10-31 05:03 | User Profile

Okiereddust wrote:

If you spent have the time fighting against multiculturalism and leftism as you did fear-mongering about Buchananism or dicing paleoconservatives...

But-but-but, I LIKE dicing paleocons. It's fun....

:holiday: :holiday: :holiday:

Okiereddust

2003-10-31 05:23 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]But-but-but, I LIKE dicing paleocons. It's fun....

:holiday: :holiday: :holiday:[/QUOTE]

Oh I know. Jonah Goldberg, Abe Foxman, and Dan Rather all find it great fun too.

At least with them (even with Jonah) we don't get that sanctimonious whining when we say they aren't real patriots or even real conservatives.

triskelion

2003-10-31 06:09 | User Profile

O.D.: "Obviously you are pretending never to have heard of "A Republic Not An Empire" in which he said the war against Germany was not necessary, which drew tremendous heat from the press, and probably broke up his Reform Party bid."

V.O: Obviously you are pretending that his numerous and more recent statements on the subject are somehow nullified by his position advanced in that work. His presidential bid had plenty of problems, many of which rested with him, and given the situation in the states combined with that dramatic failure IÃ¢â¬â¢ll stick with my notion that his time and resources could have been better spent else where. The fact that he didn't realize as much and act accordingly reflects poorly upon his understanding of practical politics.

O.D.:"You, along with the VNNers, who are always quick to blame Buchanan for his failure in 2000, never seem to give credit to Pat for this, much less venture any personal responsibility for Pat's failures on some of the statements he's made where he's actually gone out of his way to reproach to your position, more than some of us seems wise."

V.O: Your desire to tar me with the same brush used on Linder is pointless and invalid. I will take people to task for anything they do or say that is clearly contrary to the interests of Occidental renewal. I do so with the mainstream paleo -cons (rather then perceptive folks such as yourself) because to not do so is an endorsement by omission of a false alternative that has proven to be a failure. I will also continue to respond like wise to those that promote self indulgent extremism and gloss over the failures of the racist scene.

O.D.: "Of course these remarks never led any of these people to ever give Pat any credit. Instead they go out of his way to nitpick Pat to death. It seems they all have taken some deathbed oath to Odin "never say anything good about Pat Buchanan"."

V.O: When Pat makes indefensible statements I'll refute him for doing so. If that's nickpicking so be it.

O.D."If Pat is backtracking now a little bit, I can understand it. The original remarks have never done him any good - in fact I get the impression racialists wish he'd never made them, as they did so much harm to their one-sided "we are more racist-righteous than Pat"."

V.O: Pat tossed what ever principles he had out the window and failed to build even a regional movement that offered any hope of slowing down let alone reversing the destruction of your nation. I point out that truth because your countrymen no longer have the luxury of endlessly repeating that which has failed. If that's too "racist-righteous" then IÃ¢â¬â¢ll be righteous but a racialist (rather then a racist) and continue to promote that which shows signs of promise that then that which has never done so.

O.D.: "It also wouldn't surprise me if he's acquired quite a bit of wariness of the far-right over the years. One that seems quite understandable."

V.O: Given the ambiguity of his principles the feeling is mutual. Of course, mey criticisms of the racist scene in the states are more profound as you know.

O.D.: "You and the VNNers have an irrational Buchanan obsession.Ã¢â¬Â

V.O: When someone chooses to promote Buchanan as a valid alternative to Occidental destruction in the states inspite of his statements proving him to the contrary IÃ¢â¬â¢ll call him on it. ThatÃ¢â¬â¢s not an obsession that's consistency and honesty. Falsely invoking the boogeyman of Linder doesnÃ¢â¬â¢t change that truth nor the validity of my criticisms of Buchanan.

O.D. Ã¢â¬ÅIf you spent have the time fighting against multiculturalism and leftism as you did fear-mongering about Buchananism or dicing paleo - conservatives, we might not be approaching the catastrophe from multiculturalist leftism you otherwise express so much worry about.Ã¢â¬Â

V.O: In point of fact I have spent far more time promoting my ideas in the real world then I have anything else and you know as much. Of course the reality of promoting any world view is that contending ideas are considered and critiqued. If I simply endorsed faux alternatives, i.e. Buchanan, as you suggest his failure would be just as profound and his record of endorsing societally destructive untruths would be just as deplorable and just as poor a reflection on his fortitude. The only differance is that i would be unable to live with myself.

Okiereddust

2003-10-31 07:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=triskelion]O.D.: "Obviously you are pretending never to have heard of "A Republic Not An Empire" in which he said the war against Germany was not necessary, which drew tremendous heat from the press, and probably broke up his Reform Party bid."

Ah yes, the doctrinaire racialist experts in practical politics. The people that are always ready to criticize the success of the Buchanan campaign, even though Pat initially got more votes than 1000 Linder-backed candidates or any other doctrinaire racialist candidate can get in a life-time.

I'm starting to get a vague sense of the racialists dissatisfaction with Pat. It's the dissatisfaction of one group of talking heads with a talking head who's more successful. And of course the net effect is to always make the neo's who think they're all a bunch of looney racist idiots look like brilliant genuises and wits.

The other part of it is just an unwillingness of anti-parliamentarians to countenance the possibility of real success by parliamentary means. To have an American achieve real success and concrete achievements without having every word of their doctrinaire ideologists, be it Mein Kampf or Pareto and Sorels, just seems to be something they can't handle.

Of(f) hand, I see no need for reviewing previous threads or elaboration as this is well trodden ground.

What's well trodden is the bogus nature of your methodology of attacking Buchanan for every little misstep of his.

It is bogus because you yourself admit you talk differently when campaigning in the tiny little Islands than you do here.

If you had anywhere near the situation, success, and visibility Pat had, I would lay you even money that you would have to say the same things he does, or much worse. If you didn't want to have to retreat to some rocky island in the middle of the ocean never to be seen again.

We don't have that option.

triskelion

2003-10-31 09:00 | User Profile

O.D: "Ah yes, the doctrinaire racialist experts in practical politics. The people that are always ready to criticize the success of the Buchanan campaign, even though Pat initially got more votes than 1000 Linder-backed candidates or any other doctrinaire racialist candidate can get in a life-time"

V.O.: Your fixation with Linder and your constant projection of him onto me is annoying and beneath you. Of course that keep using the term doctrine to describe me for rejecting the contradictory and unprincipled statements of Buchanan doesn't mitigate them or change the validity or truthfulness of my position which you seem to be consciously trying to distort.

O.D: "I'm starting to get a vague sense of the racialists dissatisfaction with Pat. It's the dissatisfaction of one group of talking heads with a talking head who's more successful. And of course the net effect is to always make the neo's who think they're all a bunch of looney racist idiots look like brilliant genuises and wits." V.O.: I'm starting get a vague sense of the paleo-con refusal to come to grips with the fact that Buchanan is unprincipled. They view him as shrewd masters of political compromise that never won election on any level while pandering to those that hold conservatism in contempt and destroy that conservatives cherish. Of course what upsets them most is when someone points out the obvious so they simply pronounce such messengers as misanthropes and say they act like Linder. Of course, it's much easier to pretend that someone like me is no different then Linder then it is to recognize that Buchanan's campaigns has achieved nothing while surrendering all principles worth having. O.D."The other part of it is just an unwillingness of anti-parliamentarians to countenance the possibility of real success by parliamentary means." V.O.: Not true in the least. I support the People's party on the mainland and they are very successful. To be active in parliamentary politics because it serves an immediate need is not the same as accepting the ultimate desirability of parliamentarianism. O.D. "To have an American achieve real success and concrete achievements without having every word of their doctrinaire ideologists, be it Mein Kampf or Pareto and Sorels, just seems to be something they can't handle."

V.O.: Once again I see you use the term doctrine to deride me for being serious about my principles and to justify the surrender of conservatism by Buchanan. What you clearly can't handle is the ability to resist the desire to misrepresent my views or my actions to prop up the failure and lack of principle exhibited by Buchanan.

O.D.:"What's well trodden is the bogus nature of your methodology of attacking Buchanan for every little misstep of his." V.O.: What is bogus is your glossing over his repeated statements that are contrary to conservatism and an unwavering defense of his failed campaign strategies. O.D.: "It is bogus because you yourself admit you talk differently when campaigning in the tiny little Islands than you do here."

V.O.: That statement pretty demonstrates your dishonest portrayal of my views because when I campaign here I talk differently not from fear or wish to appease but for the simple reason that in a totally homogenous community it makes no more sense to talk of racial problems then it does to speak of Martians. When campaign on the mainland however I am constantly engaging in legal brinkmanship because it needs to be done. I will also point out that I have had quite good success on the mainland as well.

O.D.: "If you had anywhere near the situation, success, and visibility Pat had, I would lay you even money that you would have to say the same things he does, or much worse." V.O.: And you'd lose your money. O.D.: "If you didn't want to have to retreat to some rocky island in the middle of the ocean never to be seen again." V.O.: Retreat? I've been very public in my activism for a great many years but on the mainland and on behalf of populists and nationalists else where. I am regularly seen in a great many places across Europa and no one disputes that. Saying that I have retreated from anything is not just deeply insulting but a grotesque lie.

O.D.: "We don't have that option."

V.O.: Sure you do. You stick by and defend Buchanan's retreat from principle as a great strategic move while overlooking that it's achieved nothing but keping Pat's paycheck rolling in.

Okiereddust

2003-10-31 10:19 | User Profile

[QUOTE=triskelion]O.D: "I'm starting to get a vague sense of the racialists dissatisfaction with Pat. It's the dissatisfaction of one group of talking heads with a talking head who's more successful. And of course the net effect is to always make the neo's who think they're all a bunch of looney racist idiots look like brilliant genuises and wits." V.O.: I'm starting get a vague sense of the paleo-con refusal to come to grips with the fact that Buchanan is unprincipled. They view him as shrewd masters of political compromise that never won election on any level while pandering to those that hold conservatism in contempt and destroy that conservatives cherish. Of course what upsets them most is when someone points out the obvious so they simply pronounce such messengers as misanthropes and say they act like Linder. Of course, it's much easier to pretend that someone like me is no different then Linder then it is to recognize that Buchanan's campaigns has achieved nothing while surrendering all principles worth having. O.D."The other part of it is just an unwillingness of anti-parliamentarians to countenance the possibility of real success by parliamentary means." V.O.: Not true in the least. I support the People's party on the mainland and they are very successful. To be active in parliamentary politics because it serves an immediate need is not the same as accepting the ultimate desirability of parliamentarianism.........

O.D.: "It is bogus because you yourself admit you talk differently when campaigning in the tiny little Islands than you do here."

O.D.: "We don't have that option."

V.O.: Sure you do. You stick by and defend Buchanan's retreat from principle as a great strategic move while overlooking that it's achieved nothing but keeping Pat's paycheck rolling in.[/QUOTE]

Laying aside the ruminations on philosophy, what seems to me to be the heart of the matter is the differences between your treatment of Buchanan and the pro-Buchanan wing of the GOP vs. your treatment of of the Danish People's Party. I suspect if yuo made a fair comparison, you would find in almost every aspect that Buchanan Republicanism is more nationalistic and conservative than the Danish People's Party, and its political successes in general more striking. Given that, I would like to know why you openly endorse and actually support the People's Party in Denmark, but completely anathemize not only Buchanan but all of Buchananism in America. Maybe that might be a good basis for comparison.

I suspect that might be the best basis for a compartive discussion of continental vs. stateside populism, and the differeing stances and attitudes taken by racialist leaders in regards to these two different movements.

That, if done fairly and objectively, should go along way to settling the question of if there is any sound philosophical and ideological basis for these different stances taken by racialists (at least in your case - I'm not sure exactly sure of course how other racialists view parties like the Danish People's Party), and if so, what they are, as opposed to whether this is just an accomodation to the anti-American spirit and feelings that seems generally widespread in racialist circles.

Of course this could develop into something fairly involved, but maybe by the same token it would be something very valuble for a lot of people to see.

It might possibly turn out that our differences, which seem to both of us to be hard to rationaly explain, are not just do to our respective hard-headedness but to a more basic difference in philosophy and ideology. It could be for instance that racialists just misunderstand the basis and thinking in Buchanan's conservatism, and thus accuse him of seling out his principles, when his principles are just different than theirs. Likewise us for the racialists.

Texas Dissident

2003-10-31 16:42 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]It might possibly turn out that our differences, which seem to both of us to be hard to rationaly explain, are not just do to our respective hard-headedness but to a more basic difference in philosophy and ideology.[/QUOTE]

Good intentions, Okie, but save your time and headaches. 'Ne'er the twain shall meet' between American traditional/paleo-cons and european-national socialist types. The latter have no interest in getting along with anyone. It's the totalitarian mindset, that is so obvious with every word they write.

My best advice, move on and wipe the dust from your sandals.

Hugh Lincoln

2003-10-31 19:38 | User Profile

Ramesh Ponnuru is a curry-eating little Indian with the voice of an 8-year-old girl. Like Dinesh D'Souza, he's picked up sniffy khaki conservatism from the British educational legacy left on the subcontinent and, for its American application, desperately wants it to slice OUT buck-toothed blacks but leave IN quick-witted and well-read but dark-skinned Indians like him. So, neoconnism sounds great to him. He can yuck it up about both the lesser races in Washington Heights and the yokels in Nebraska whilst clinking glasses with Jews at Zagat-approved restaurants up and down Manhattan.

As for Buchanan, he leaves himself vulnerable to the pennings of a Ponnuru because nobody knows what he stands for. He won't say "Jew," except in jest, and he won't say "White," preferring it to West. He has a fuzzy notion of what he wants but can't articulate what forms its basis and how to go about getting it. This may be, as some have noted, confusion brought on by Catholic universalism. Buchanan's a talented writer and his "Whose War" was a symphony, but it all falls apart because he won't say what's really driving him. That, because he may not even know, but that's charitable speculation.

It's not "the west" that's dying. West is a direction. It's WHITES who are dying: dying politically, dying socially, dying culturally and dying literally. And we have a killer: Jews, gentile traitors, and the racial garbage let loose. If you can't say WHAT is happening, you have no chance of stopping it.

Franco

2003-10-31 21:03 | User Profile

Tex wrote:

'Ne'er the twain shall meet' between American traditional/paleo-cons and european-national socialist types. The latter have no interest in getting along with anyone. It's the totalitarian mindset, that is so obvious with every word they write.

Actually, I agree. But please note that I am not a Nazi per se. Yes, I sympathize with 80% of Nazism, but I am not one per se.

Tex, and other paleos, would do well to consider the idea of "total culture." [in fact, I might start a thread for that]. The basic idea there is that either you a) have a total White culture within your country that permeates all areas of a citizen's life; and b] you forcefully control that White culture totally, in all areas of public life, or you will lose that culture. That is what I MOST admire about the Nazis. They understood that. Their culture was pushed and championed "everywhere." In schools, in movies, even in a doctor's office. Paleocons don't get that idea.

We must forcefully control our culture. Examples? Which art will be in public view, what music is allowed on TV, what shows are allowed on TV, what movies are shown at the theater. Lemme tell ya, if I was in control of America's culture, there would be HEAP BIG changes, all across the board, in our culture. Nothing "non-White" would be allowed. Period. After about 8 years, our country would be transformed into a virtual paradise if I had control of our culture. It would be Germany, 1938 all over again, but only here in America. The art, the architecture, the music, everything would be White and pure. Picture it! Heh, heh.

Force must be used to control your culture, or it will die off, even under paleo rule. Not that I would mind Tex running America per se, but he would have to hold very firm the cultural reigns, so to speak.

Paleos don't embrace the total culture concept. That is too "totalitarian" for them. But they should. That concept is the only one which will save us.

xmetalhead

2003-10-31 21:12 | User Profile

[QUOTE]We must forcefully control our culture. Examples? Which art will be in public view, what music is allowed on TV, what shows are allowed on TV, what movies are shown at the theater. Lemme tell ya, if I was in control of America's culture, there would be HEAP BIG changes, all across the board, in our culture. Nothing "non-White" would be allowed. Period. After about 8 years, our country would be transformed into a virtual paradise if I had control of our culture. It would be Germany, 1938 all over again, but only here in America. The art, the architecture, the music, everything would be White and pure. Picture it! Heh, heh.

Paleos don't embrace the total culture concept. That is too "totalitarian" for them. But they should. That concept is the only one which will save us[/QUOTE]

I agree with this 1000% Franco. Great point on a critical issue.

Franco

2003-10-31 21:23 | User Profile

Heh, heh, thanks.

Look at Argentina, 1970s. Rightists took control of the government, and then......used the government to completely remake Argentine culture. They even kicked out all of the leftist university professors and replaced them with hand-picked military teachers. Top-to-bottom, they rebuilt their entire culture with force. It was great, even though it only lasted about 7 years, due to international pressure.

Force of government is how you forcefully control your culture. See? The Nazis did it right. We are losing our White culture because no force is being used to conserve it. "Conservatives" ain't conserving nothin'. Heck, your average Limbaugh fan has no problem with a woman going to work in a high-rise office building while sticking little Johnnie into a day-care center. How is that mindset "conservative?" It ain't!

Wanna conserve? Use force of law.

xmetalhead

2003-10-31 22:00 | User Profile

Franco, above all else, conservation of the culture is the government's [I]only[/I] job. Good economics flow from a sound culture. Healthy reproduction rates flow from a sound culture. Justice flows from a sound culture. Racial integrity is sound culture. High art and music flows from a sound culture.

If that makes me a Nazi sympathizer......

Okiereddust

2003-10-31 22:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Actually, I agree. But please note that I am not a Nazi per se. Yes, I sympathize with 80% of Nazism, but I am not one per se.

For most people 80% is enough.

Force must be used to control your culture, or it will die off, even under paleo rule. Not that I would mind Tex running America per se, but he would have to hold very firm the cultural reigns, so to speak.

Paleos don't embrace the total culture concept. That is too "totalitarian" for them. But they should. That concept is the only one which will save us.[/QUOTE]

Of course the 10 dollar question here is how is force and totalitarianism going to save a western culture which by its essense embraces freedom and individualism? Is the answer to threat to the west from Gramscian communism and jewish totalitarianism for white people just to adapt these ideals for themselves.

That's a question that conservatism at least knows how to address, unlike Nazism, which is baffled by it.

Franco

2003-10-31 22:36 | User Profile

Okie wrote:

That's a question that conservatism at least knows how to address, unlike Nazism, which is baffled by it.

Rule number #1: Conservatives are not conserving anything. Allowing some immigration, and allowing women to become lawyers and police officers, and allowing negroes and Jews to become judges ain't "conserving" nothin'. What the hell is a conservative "conserving" besides low taxes?

I may have cut my teeth on early Rush Limbaugh, true, but them days are loooong gone, my friends. Onward and upward. Race comes first.

Okiereddust

2003-10-31 22:42 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Good intentions, Okie, but save your time and headaches. 'Ne'er the twain shall meet' between American traditional/paleo-cons and european-national socialist types. The latter have no interest in getting along with anyone. It's the totalitarian mindset, that is so obvious with every word they write.

My best advice, move on and wipe the dust from your sandals.[/QUOTE]

Quite true. The National Socialist attack on conservatives and conservatism isnt as well known as its polemics against Communism, but it is every bit as pronounced. It is a hostility that is probably as much responsible as anything else jewish perfidy included, for conservatives drift toward the neocons.

While willing to expropriate dead thinkers like Friedrich the Great and Nietzsche, who cannot fight it, living conservatives from Spengler to Buchanan and Francis who resist incorporation have always been the target of the visceral dislike and viscuous attacks.

The odd thing is that NS don't think anything of exproiting the ideas of left-wing people like Norman Finklestein, Noam Chomsky, or even yes Bill White. Odd until you consider this basic anti-conservative bent of NS.

How ironic that in the conservative wars NSers play the role of the neocons friend and the paleo's enemy, attacking Buchanan's "sell out of principle" and Francis's "vagueness" in language not unsimilar to that of the neocons.

Okiereddust

2003-10-31 22:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Rule number #1: Conservatives are not conserving anything. Allowing some immigration, and allowing women to become lawyers and police officers, and allowing negroes and Jews to become judges ain't "conserving" nothin'. What the hell is a conservative "conserving" besides low taxes? [/QUOTE]

You don't want us to conserve anything. Preseving conservative institutions just interferes with your nihlistic dream of world revolution and hegonomy.

Franco

2003-10-31 23:08 | User Profile

Okie wrote:

Oh, yeah, suuuure -- compare WNs to neocons.

Face facts, Okie: it appears that you still do not understand that WNs think RACIALLY. You are still thinking POLITICALLY. Big, big difference. See?

C'mon, Okie -- become a WN. It's fun. And less confusing, since you do not have to ponder anything political.

:holiday:

Okiereddust

2003-11-01 00:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]C'mon, Okie -- become a WN. It's fun. And less confusing, since you do not have to ponder anything political. :holiday:[/QUOTE]

Don't have to ponder anything period.

That's OK. I like not being a robot.

Texas Dissident

2003-11-01 00:26 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Oh, yeah, suuuure -- compare WNs to neocons.[/QUOTE]

Actually Franco, he compared nazis to neocons, unless you are stating that white nationalism = nazism. I don't think that's necessarily the case as Valley Forge and mwdallas, among others, have argued for a paleo-libertarian version of white nationalism (something which seems much more palatable to me).

Bardamu

2003-11-01 00:46 | User Profile

My best advice, move on and wipe the dust from your sandals.[/QUOTE]

You are talking about Triskelion here having no interest in getting along with anyone? Hmmm... I find him to be one of OD's smartest, most interesting, and most courteous posters.

Zoroaster

2003-11-01 03:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Bardamu]You are talking about Triskelion here having no interest in getting along with anyone? Hmmm... I find him to be one of OD's smartest, most interesting, and most courteous posters.[/QUOTE]

I second your endorsement of Triskelion. Having spent almost ten years in Germany, I can vouch for his posts about European culture and politics.

Okie, as the chief disrupter of this forum, has obviously taken a dislike to Triskelion. Tex is merely following Okie's example. Could we call it follow the leader? There's that old adage, you know, "One leads by example."

-Z-

triskelion

2003-11-01 04:11 | User Profile

My best advice, move on and wipe the dust from your sandals.[/QUOTE]

T.D., your comments above prove you have not read anything I have said about my views or my activism. In point of fact, I reject totalitarianism and accept (rather then endorse) some forms of authoritarianism only when no other viable choice exists. My economics and notions of the state are decentralized and anti-imperialistic with a limited state roll being my ideal which is why I favour neo-guildism and distributalism guide my economics and I find much to agree with in terms of Catholic societal philosophy which was a big influence on most of those that inspire me.

In case you missed my most basic statement on National Socialism the first few hundred times I made it I'll recap it for you. National Socialism is a broad term that encompasses numerous schools of thought in nearly every nation of Europa from the 1890s onwards. I don't believe that the NSDAP regime is a model to be emulated anywhere in the world today for practical and ideological reasons. My ideology is drawn primarily from non German sources. I also work with a very wide range of people/organizations from wide range of ideological and religious dispositions which is something I have made clear on numerous occasions.

In the future you would do well to consider my view points and ask for clarification before making broad sweeping generalizations like you did below which have zero basis in reality. I extend that basic courtesy to those I debate and expect the same.

Okie, you should knw better then to think I promote totalitarianism. My comments to TD are applicable to you in large measure as well. I'll answer your question shortly.

Okiereddust

2003-11-01 06:50 | User Profile

[QUOTE=triskelion]In case you missed my most basic statement on National Socialism the first few hundred times I made it I'll recap it for you. National Socialism is a broad term that encompasses numerous schools of thought in nearly every nation of Europa from the 1890s onwards. I don't believe that the NSDAP regime is a model to be emulated anywhere in the world today for practical and ideological reasons. My ideology is drawn primarily from non German sources. I also work with a very wide range of people/organizations from wide range of ideological and religious dispositions which is something I have made clear on numerous occasions.

I hear this a lot from you, but personally do not completely your sanguine feelings about the use of the term "National Socialist". I don't feel there really is nearly as large and broad a precedent for the term outside post WWI Germany as you suggest. Regarding the schools of thought and thinkers you may be conflating with National Socialism, like Moeller and his concepts, I did specifically point out the weakness of mixing the two ideologies, in which regard I did not receive a response.

[quote=triskelion]In the future you would do well to consider my view points and ask for clarification before making broad sweeping generalizations like you did below which have zero basis in reality. I extend that basic courtesy to those I debate and expect the same.

Okie, you should know better then to think I promote totalitarianism. My comments to TD are applicable to you in large measure as well. I'll answer your question shortly.[/QUOTE] I agree with the desirability of asking for qualification before making broad sweeping generalizations like Tex did. However, with all due respect, that is a large part of what I had been doing on that thread, trying to to clarify some of these basic points that have been one of if not the biggest sticking point with you, your dismissive atitude toward paleo thinkers in general, specifically your respective attitudes toward Francis and Buchanan. IMO we've never received a completely adequate answer from our perspective. I, while finding the general NS attitude toward Francis/Buchanan strongly evocative of totalitarianism, have been trying to determine and understand your specific thinking on the matter.

I personally wait on your reply, and extend such courtesies as I always do, expecting that such replies will be productive and lead to substantial clarification. After this amount of time however, I don't think it mandantory or inevitable that every reasonable person extend the same patience as I, and refrain from forming and summarizing, and expressing their own opinions.

[quote=Barmadu]You are talking about Triskelion here having no interest in getting along with anyone? Hmmm... I find him to be one of OD's smartest, most interesting, and most courteous posters.

Yes indeed as I also do. That's why I feel the problems I have with understanding and accepting his point of view are so perjorative toward National Socialism. If Triskelion can't give a reasonable explanation of NS's biases in the context we're talking about, certainly no one else can, or from what I've seen of NS's in general can come within distant reach.

[quote=Zoroaster]Okie, as the chief disrupter of this forum, has obviously taken a dislike to Triskelion. Tex is merely following Okie's example. Could we call it follow the leader? There's that old adage, you know, "One leads by example."

I certainly do not dislike Triskelion of course, and feel a deep fondness for the man after knowing him several years and going through so much. However I find the general stance of his almost demands, that to accept his views, one must assume some of his ideological and what seems to some extent personal antagonism toward Pat Buchanan and skepticism toward Francis.

That is something I am not prepared to do, and to the extent that someone asks that of me I will continue to ask the same tough questions of them that they are asking me to ask of paleoism and Buchanan. If you can answer them fine.

triskelion

2003-11-01 07:20 | User Profile

O.D.: "Laying aside the ruminations on philosophy, what seems to me to be the heart of the matter is the differences between your treatment of Buchanan and the pro-Buchanan wing of the GOP vs. your treatment of the Danish People's Party. I suspect if you made a fair comparison, you would find in almost every aspect that Buchanan Republicanism is more nationalistic and conservative than the Danish People's Party, and its political successes in general more striking. Given that, I would like to know why you openly endorse and actually support the People's Party in Denmark, but completely anathemize not only Buchanan but all of Buchananism in America. Maybe that might be a good basis for comparison."

V.O.: On a very fundamental I reject Buchananism on ideological terms so the matter is not one of ruminations but of principle which something you simply refuse to recognize. Also fundamental is your grossly mistaken notions that Buchananism is somehow more successful the People's Party is simply baseless. Buchanan has elected no one, has no party, has neither sponsored nor stopped a single piece of legislation and has in no way enacted any of it's tenets (nebulous and shifting with the tides as PJB sacrifices principles at every turn). By contrast, the People's Party is the third largest party in the nation, regularly elects people to all levels of government, is part of the present ruling coalition and has had moderate success in implementing some of it's tenets into public policy. If you wish, you can do a quick google search and see the numerous hysterical condemnation of the success that People's party has had in changing immigration laws.

If you wish See: "BBC News, Monday, 24 June, 2002, "Denmark cracks down on migrant marriage" in which you can read about how the DPP has made a dent in miscegenation which should be viewed as good thing (although hardly enough) by anyone that chooses to call himself a conservative. While Buchananism hasn't turned back a single alien from your boarders the DPP has made substantial reductions in legal and illegal immigration and radically scaled back welfare benefits of aliens. While Buchananism has entered the history books as one of the more ignoble chapters in American faux populism your government is planning on mass amnesty for illegal aliens and no Buchananite has any electoral prospects worth mentioning. While these achievements have inspired inane headlines like the Guardian's "While Copenhagen Flirts with Fascism Denmark is about to head the EU. It's a worrying prospect" or Counter Punch's "The New Danish Government and the Extreme Right" which is absurd it is true that "Danes justify harshest asylum laws in Europe The United Nations is questioning the legality of Denmark's immigration rules to be passed on Monday Andrew Osborn in Copenhagen Saturday June 29, 2002" as was stated in The Guardian. While the party as whole has not addressed the jewish question honestly, although it is common for it's members to do so, they have been far more strident in their criticisms of Israeli policy and American imperialism on behalf of it's Zionist master then 95% of the paleos in the states.

While it's true that I openly support the DPP and have run on it's tickets and have been elected it is also true that I have spent as much time with an organization I support on a project that has meet with some success developing folkish sentiment within the party for purpose of transforming it into a real proponent of national renewal.

Now I'll tell you what I tell everyone (even voters on occasion) about why I support the DPP. I do so for the simple reason that have not wavered one iota on actively opposing multi-racialism and as they have the skills and infrastructure needed to get elected they have been effective in drastically reducing the rate of demographic decay which buys my comrades the time needed to advance our agenda. My organization's efforts to transform the DPP into a folkish party is part of an overall strategic vision I adhere to and it is one that has shown real signs of progress. For reasons that should be obvious to everyone here I'll not get into the details of that effort with those that are not actively involved. Naturally, as an adherent to the Nordic Imperium School of National Socialism I firmly reject the welfare state in a fundamental and in that sense I find some sympathy with the now no nationally significant Progress Party.

While the rank and file membership within the DPP rejects multi-racialism they have not by enlarge have come to an understanding of what that entails and what genuine alternative entails. In that sense, the DPP is like the better European populist parties (as opposed to the treason of Italy's NA or Vlaam Block) but more so because they have stood by their promises after election and actually effected public policy in a positive way. Populism (in it's better manifestations ) is a healthy rejection of aspects of the destruction of Traditionalism. In it's worst manifestations populism is nothing but a distraction for well meaning but uniformed people worried about their nation and a detriment rather then an asset to Eurocentrics. The problem of populism is that is merely a defensive reaction lacking an understanding of the reasons for degeneration or a response to it that amplifies the anti-thesis of cosmopolitanism. The value of the better populist parties provide tactical expediencies to genuine folkish activists but are far from us. As a result, anyone that supports such parties must have such efforts be a part of a larger activist effort aimed at promoting an alternative that offers genuine hope for national renewal and the resurgence of traditionalism and means some form (not always the one promoted by me) of Organicism/folkish ideology.

O.D.: "I suspect that might be the best basis for a comparative discussion of continental vs. stateside populism, and the differing stances and attitudes taken by racialist leaders in regards to these two different movements."

V.O.: I think my statement above did that with respect to Europa while my comments on the other thread about the American situation did like wise.

O.D.: "That, if done fairly and objectively, should go along way to settling the question of if there is any sound philosophical and ideological basis for these different stances taken by racialists (at least in your case - I'm not sure exactly sure of course how other racialists view parties like the Danish People's Party), and if so, what they are, as opposed to whether this is just an accommodation to the anti-American spirit and feelings that seems generally widespread in racialist circles."

V.O.: My views in this respect are pretty similar to a broad range of NR/CR/NS thought although the style differs as does strategies about confronting populism (genuine as well as neo-cons that co-opt the message). Note of course that as I am a racialist I make no claims with respect to racists as I don't associate with them or my foes on the "national" bolshevik or anarchist tendencies. Also, as I am interested in promoting real alternatives I'll spend very little of my limited time here talking about ideological and practical dead ends like populism or outright frauds like "national" bolshevism.

O.D.: "It might possibly turn out that our differences, which seem to both of us to be hard to rationally explain, are not just do to our respective hard-handedness but to a more basic difference in philosophy and ideology. It could be for instance that racialists just misunderstand the basis and thinking in Buchanan's conservatism, and thus accuse him of selling out his principles, when his principles are just different than theirs. Likewise us for the racialists"

V.O.:

I refute Buchanan for what he has said and done as well as his abysmal failure at creating an organization that could hold promise under more capable leadership. To me, the quality of a man is based solely upon the soundness of conception of the folkish weltanschauung and the sacrifices he makes to make that ideal a reality. Others may serve the ideal and have utility to it while not having it's nobility within them and are therefor of great utility but not more then that. Certainly service to Traditionalism must be in accordance with the Occidental current found with any society (including America) but such a notion is by it's nature a totality rather then a mere legal doctrine, tax code or personality vehicle. That which comes closer to that expansively conceived expression of societal cohesion is nobler then that which is a mere vestige of some aspect of the Oder of Traditionalism. Other currents of thought may serve something nobler but it is folly to view them as ends in themselves. I have often posted an article by the English ENR group "New Democracy" which describes politics as "the art of making what is necessary possible". That simple notion serves as the basis for coalition building and compromise provided that one has a viable construct for determining what must be done and why. Mainstream paleo cons and populist lack that understanding which makes them suitable allies at time but far from an end goal for the reasons I have detailed.

Your latter comments on an overly narrowly defined National Socialism indicates that you have missed for some reason any real grasp of what it was or my relationship to it. Why you wish to project people like Linder on to me and those that inspired me is something I can't understand. As a result, I would suggest going back to the articles I wrote that are on [url]http://wsd.matriots.com/trisk/index.html[/url] and the interviews found there if you want to know what I stand for. Naturally, reading my books would be good as well and when Bjarni finishes translating one of them I'll reserve you a copy (small print run) if you like. That's it for now as I've lots of work to tend to.

triskelion

2003-11-01 07:57 | User Profile

O.D. "I hear this a lot from you, but personally do not completely your sanguine feelings about the use of the term "National Socialist". I don't feel there really is nearly as large and broad a precedent for the term outside post WWI Germany as you suggest."

V.O.: There is no other way to put it other then your profoundly wrong. I have furnished mountains of support to the contrary but you persist in not recognizing that reality.

O.D.: "Regarding the schools of thought and thinkers you may be conflating with National Socialism, like Moeller and his concepts, I did specifically point out the weakness of mixing the two ideologies, in which regard I did not receive a response."

V.O.: Your simply are not recognizing what I said which is likely why I didn't respond. I did not say that Moeller was a National Socialist but I did say he had a major influence on Hitler and pointed you towards an excellent text on the matter which you have not acknowledged at all. That I don't conflate anyone is something you refuse to recognize because you lack a grasp of the schools I have mentioned while ignoring the substance of what I have pointed to in terms of ideological continuity between them. In part I suppose that it stems from language troubles as a lot of the stuff I mention is not in English but more so I think it stems from your refusal to see beyond the baseless notion so common in the states that the sum total of NS is the NSDAP era in Germany. I again would point you towards the writings of Sternhell but forgive me if I'm not optimistic that you'll take his works into consideration of the schema I have presented.

O.D.: "I agree with the desirability of asking for qualification before making broad sweeping generalizations like Tex did. However, with all due respect, that is a large part of what I had been doing on that thread, trying to clarify some of these basic points that have been one of if not the biggest sticking point with you, your dismissive attitude toward paleo thinkers in general, specifically your respective attitudes toward Francis and Buchanan. IMO we've never received a completely adequate answer from our perspective. I, while finding the general NS attitude toward Francis/Buchanan strongly evocative of totalitarianism, have been trying to determine and understand your specific thinking on the matter."

V.O.: I've stated my objections clearly and often. You don't agree and you refuse to recognize them for reasons known only to you.

O.D.: "If Triskelion can't give a reasonable explanation of NS's biases in the context we're talking about, certainly no one else can, or from what I've seen of NS's in general can come within distant reach."

V.O.: I and a great many others have done exactly what you ask. Many much better then I although I guess I may be the only one to bother talking to Americans on these matters as my compatriots view my efforts to do as inane and pointless and say so often. I'd say you simply refuse to recognize what I have said. In fact, I have heard from quite literally at least 200 people that have read my "what does it mean to be neither left nor right" article and have understood exactly what I stand for. I have gotten similar numbers and qualities of replies from the "the Folkish Gestalt Explained" and the "the Nature NS and the Danger of Compromise" articles. Certainly not all agree but no one else seems to be confused about what they convey.

O.D.: "I certainly do not dislike Triskelion of course, and feel a deep fondness for the man after knowing him several years and going through so much. However I find the general stance of his almost demands, that to accept his views, one must assume some of his ideological and what seems to some extent personal antagonism toward Pat Buchanan and skepticism toward Francis.

V.O.: The sub text of your reply to Z seems to clearly state that you understand exactly what I say but refuse to accept it for emotional reasons. That is likely why you continually wish to portray me as totalitarian when that is wildly inaccurate and project Linder's mentality on to mine. I don't demand anything. I do point out valid criticisms of Buchanan and mainstream paleo - cons and you won't consider them honestly because of your emotional investment in the luminaries with that scene. That's fine by me as is the more positive reception I receive from others.

W.R.I.T.O.S

2003-11-01 07:59 | User Profile

Let's get real. There is no Buchanan wing of the Republican Party. The guy has made it perfectly clear that he is not a white nationalist and he has been an abject failure in the political arena.

Okiereddust

2003-11-01 08:36 | User Profile

[QUOTE=triskelion]O.D.: "Laying aside the ruminations on philosophy, what seems to me to be the heart of the matter is the differences between your treatment of Buchanan and the pro-Buchanan wing of the GOP vs. your treatment of the Danish People's Party. I suspect if you made a fair comparison, you would find in almost every aspect that Buchanan Republicanism is more nationalistic and conservative than the Danish People's Party, and its political successes in general more striking. Given that, I would like to know why you openly endorse and actually support the People's Party in Denmark, but completely anathemize not only Buchanan but all of Buchananism in America. Maybe that might be a good basis for comparison."

I was comparing the respective movements on two grounds, that of success and that of ideology, I intended more my more substantive point with the regard to the greater successes of Buchananism to be ideology - this regarding their political success. A regarding their pure electoral success I don't think I'd ever say now Buchananism was more of a success than the People's Party - I was looking more at the successes at policy level.

But let's get back to the electoral issue for the moment. To compare the success of a small political party in Denmark or other European state with that of a similar small political party in the U.S. or even the U.K., Canada, or Australia is not just comparing apples and oranges, its more like comparing apples with chunks of concrete. Rules in the anglo-saxon "first at the box" electoral system, as opposed to continental proportional representation, make it much more difficult in general for small parties to succeed. The U.S. in general is especially difficult, where it is almost inordinately difficiult for a third party to achieve real success as a party. So really gauging the success of Buchananism through the 12 years its been active as a political force has only small relation to the 2000 success of Buchanan as a Reform Party presidential candidate (So I'll admit it does have some).

In general the success of movements in the U.S. is gauged rather by their influence on one of the two main groupings (parties is somewhat inaccurate) on the American scene - the Demcratic or Republican Party. And it is here I think you'd find the influence of Buchananism most notable. Although immigration is certainly a problem in the U.S., it terms of numbers and percentages it is still smaller I think quite a bit than Denmark. And I would suspect the changes suggested by the most direct Republican descendent of Buchananism - Tom Tancredo and the House Immigration Reform Caucus - both go beyond and have a better chance of being enacted than anything suggested by the Danish People's Party - I say suspect because I of course can't really follow internal Danish politics very well.

And leaving the narrow topic of immigration toward broader social topics, the GOP is more conservative than any party in Denmark of course, much more conservative on most issues. What would the chances of the Danish People's Party, opposing gun registration, favoring broad use of the death penalty, supporting a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, supprting abstinence education in the schools, supporting equal financial incentive for mothers who stay at home as those who day-care, basically abolishing welfare, or strongly opposing most of the initiatives of the United Nations?

Of course one can't trace all this success to Buchanan, just as it would be hard to trace it to the Danish People's Party leader. But as the most prominent leader of the faction suprting these policies, he deserves a strong degree of support for their continued success in America.

While the party as whole has not addressed the jewish question honestly, although it is common for it's members to do so, they have been far more strident in their criticisms of Israeli policy and American imperialism on behalf of it's Zionist master then 95% of the paleos in the states.

As I'm sure all parties in Denmark, of the center and left as well, are regarding the Zionism than their American counterparts. You can't blame Buchanan for the ascendency of Zionism in America, although it certainly seems at times you'd like to try.

Okiereddust

2003-11-01 08:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=triskelion]O.D.: "Regarding the schools of thought and thinkers you may be conflating with National Socialism, like Moeller and his concepts, I did specifically point out the weakness of mixing the two ideologies, in which regard I did not receive a response."

As I pointed you toward an actual quote, which I typed and put on the forum as oppossed to just incuding in one of a voluminious stack of references, which I never got a reply back from you. This quote specifically showed Nazi's basically rejected Moeller as an influence on NS ideology.

O.D.: "I certainly do not dislike Triskelion of course, and feel a deep fondness for the man after knowing him several years and going through so much. However I find the general stance of his almost demands, that to accept his views, one must assume some of his ideological and what seems to some extent personal antagonism toward Pat Buchanan and skepticism toward Francis.

Excuse me if I ask you where I ever said you were totalitarian. Aren't you just inferring on my wishes?

I don't demand anything. I do point out valid criticisms of Buchanan and mainstream paleo - cons and you won't consider them honestly because of your emotional investment in the luminaries with that scene. That's fine by me as is the more positive reception I receive from others.[/QUOTE]

You criticize Buchanan and suggest we're much more emotionally tied in with them than we'd admit. If we seem to do the same with regard to you vis a vis the Third Reich I 'd hope based on this that you wouldn't object. But accept my word I try not to do this. I don't think psychoanalysis/quasi-Critical Theory is an appropriately fokkish way of political discourse.

We've taken our best shot, but doubt we're going to move much. I think on things like Buchanan and NS we'll just have to agree to disagree for now.

Smedley Butler

2003-11-01 09:37 | User Profile

Sam Francis, is a fine writer, he is doing something to get people to think...... As for Pukecannon, many thousand's who gave him money in the past, wouldn't spit on him to save his hide today.... That's the short of it...

Texas Dissident

2003-11-01 16:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Bardamu]You are talking about Triskelion here having no interest in getting along with anyone?[/QUOTE]

No, not necessarily, although it did appear that way considering how I quoted Okie.

Texas Dissident

2003-11-01 17:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Zoroaster]Okie, as the chief disrupter of this forum, has obviously taken a dislike to Triskelion.[/QUOTE]

You are misinformed, Z. Okie is hardly a disrupter here on this board, rather quite the opposite, a highly valued contributor and charter member. In addition, I know for a fact that he has long maintained personal correspondence with triskelion, so you're wrong on that as well.

Texas Dissident

2003-11-01 17:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=triskelion]T.D., your comments above prove you have not read anything I have said about my views or my activism.

You're being quite presumptuous, trisk. My comments prove nothing of the sort.

In point of fact, I reject totalitarianism and accept (rather then endorse) some forms of authoritarianism only when no other viable choice exists.

You can write whatever you want, and I've read enough to know. I'm not basing my opinion solely on what you write, but rather my own subjective interpretation of the totality of what you and others state here on the board.

In case you missed my most basic statement on National Socialism the first few hundred times I made it I'll recap it for you.

And I've tried to stay awake, but I'm a busy man. Again, what you write comes off as very ecumenical, but my observation is all that goes out the window when real issues and/or conflict arise. That's just my observation, I speak for no one else.

In the future you would do well to consider my view points and ask for clarification before making broad sweeping generalizations like you did below which have zero basis in reality. I extend that basic courtesy to those I debate and expect the same.

Please don't presume that everything is about you and that I haven't considered anything before I publicly comment here on my board. Not much of anything I put up, write or edit here is done without my considering the effect it will have. So please be sure that any sweeping generalizations I make are because I have every intention of making that sweeping generalization, including all the consequences of myself making it. Honesty regarding my intentions is the basic courtesy I extend.

triskelion

2003-11-01 18:09 | User Profile

O.D.: "As I pointed you toward an actual quote, which I typed and put on the forum as opposed to just including in one of a voluminous stack of references, which I never got a reply back from you. This quote specifically showed Nazi's basically rejected Moeller as an influence on NS ideology."

V.O..: You clearly didn't read what I said, again, which is why you are willfully confused. I did not give you a voluminous stack of references but rather one book which you'll not acknowledge called the Man Who Invented the Third Reich by Stan Lauryssens which is easily obtainable at amazon.com . If you read it you'll note that your single only quote from an SS publication really says nothing about the reality that Hilter was influenced by Moeller and for some time actively courted his support. Given your refusal to read what I say let alone the pre-eminent work in English on the subject I'll not bother addressing the matter to you again.

O.D.: "Excuse me if I ask you where I ever said you were totalitarian. Aren't you just inferring on my wishes?"

V.O.: Quite right, I was wrong. You were responding to Franco and some else which I misunderstood.

O.D.:You criticize Buchanan and suggest we're much more emotionally tied in with them than we'd admit.

V.O.: That assertion is fully born out by your defense of him while pan glossing over the numerous anti-conservative statements he made and his abysmal failure in practical politics. As no rational basis for such a position exists and given your last statement to Z it's clear that your position on the matter is entirely driven by emotion. Your absurd attempt at claiming he has had objective successes greater then DPP is simply further proof of your irrationality on the topic. Of course WRITOS is right that "There is no Buchanan wing of the Republican Party. The guy has made it perfectly clear that he is not a white nationalist and he has been an abject failure in the political arena." and anyone that lacks some heavy emotional investment in BJB clearly knows as much.

O.D.: "If we seem to do the same with regard to you vis a vis the Third Reich I 'd hope based on this that you wouldn't object. But accept my word I try not to do this."

V.O.: You would have a point if I claimed that the regime was a utopia like LG did or even if I simply had no criticisms of it. Given that neither is the case and that in fact I have made numerous and substantive criticisms of the regime and it's uncritical supporters your assertion fails. In reality, I'd spend far less time dealing with the issue if you would stop investing so much time in making counter factual statements about the regime.

O.D.: "I don't think psychoanalysis/quasi-Critical Theory is an appropriately Folkish way of political discourse."

V.O.: I don't either. Of course you are largely unfamiliar with folkish discourses of any sort but your hunch is right in this instance. I will however point out the obvious that your treatment of BJB is irrational.

O.D.: "We've taken our best shot, but doubt we're going to move much. I think on things like Buchanan and NS we'll just have to agree to disagree for now.

V.O. Given your unwillingness to consider what I have said about NS in any context and that you show no interest in the canons that express the thought of the various schools I have mentioned and that you only confer with blatantly basised establishment sources I see no point in engaging in any exchanges with you on those topics. Your irrationality in these matters is something not amenable to my appeals to historicism and logic. Nothing else need be said on the matter although I am sure you will disagree. In the future, I will refute any untruths on these subjects that I notice and have the time to address although I have illusions that doing so will result in a re-evaluation of your thoughts on NS theory and practice of any sort.

Bardamu and Zoroaster, thank you for kind words of support.

triskelion

2003-11-01 18:45 | User Profile

T.D.: "You're being quite presumptuous, trisk. My comments prove nothing of the sort."

V.O.: Given that your comment about "totalitarianism" and "nazis" was made in reference to an exchange between Okie and myself my response is fully reasonable. Of course if your comments were not intended towards me them I retract my response although I hope you understand why it seemed well founded.

T.D.: "You can write whatever you want, and I've read enough to know. I'm not basing my opinion solely on what you write, but rather my own subjective interpretation of the totality of what you and others state here on the board."

V.O.: If you had read a significant portion of what I had written here or anywhere else you should have zero reason to think I am totalitarian in any sense. If you have come to some other conclusion it's clearly do to a misreading of me or unfounded presumptions. Once again, you'd do better to ask for clarification then make unfounded assumptions as you have appeared to do. Obviously, what others write should not be seen as a reflection my ideology or those that I support/am supported by unless I state such a relation explicitly.

T.D. "And I've tried to stay awake, but I'm a busy man. Again, what you write comes off as very ecumenical, but my observation is all that goes out the window when real issues and/or conflict arise. That's just my observation, I speak for no one else."

V.O.: I stated very clearly in two sentences why your aparent presumption is incorrect so I guess there is nothing else I can say if you think your original statement is relavent to me. As to real issues and conflicts my actions speak for themselves so again it seems that your notions about me are a product of something other then what I have said and done.

T.D.: "Please don't presume that everything is about you and that I haven't considered anything before I publicly comment here on my board. Not much of anything I put up, write or edit here is done without my considering the effect it will have. So please be sure that any sweeping generalizations I make are because I have every intention of making that sweeping generalization, including all the consequences of myself making it. Honesty regarding my intentions is the basic courtesy I extend."

V.O.: I view you as a well meaning stalwart of the Southern ideal and I generally find that what you say is measured and valid. I also think that your intentions are fully honest and that your actions display the correctness of my opinion of you. You did however make a sweeping generalization that seems to have been about me. If you intended to include me in the generalization you made then it is a wrong one with respect to me. If your comments were directed at someone other then implied by the context then I obviously will take no exception.

Ruffin

2003-11-01 19:02 | User Profile

Actually, I agree. But please note that I am not a Nazi per se. Yes, I sympathize with 80% of Nazism, but I am not one per se.

Paleos don't embrace the total culture concept. That is too "totalitarian" for them. But they should. That concept is the only one which will save us.

Attaboy, Franco!

"Conservatives", or "paleos", or whatever term they've escaped into this week, have absorbed the redefinition of the white man's role as a brave attacker of nations which cannot defend themselves, instead of as protectors of their own society - at all costs. Like jinoistic leftists, they loathe the people they're encouraged to loathe and wallow in frustration and confusion about why they can't convert people, or take their country back. "Men" like Buchanan are natural "leaders" for these Americans. The wimpier, the more respectable and correct they are in the eyes of the judenrats who then use this effeminate behaviour against them for further gain. This is why they've been pushed so far in a single direction for a century. They still can't understand where their "carefulness" goes wrong.

Texas Dissident

2003-11-01 19:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ruffin]"Conservatives", or "paleos", or whatever term they've escaped into this week, have absorbed the redefinition of the white man's role as a brave attacker of nations which cannot defend themselves, instead of as protectors of their own society - at all costs.

Example?

Like jin(g)oistic leftists, they loathe the people they're encouraged to loathe...

And who are those people exactly?

and wallow in frustration and confusion about why they can't convert people, or take their country back.

Who is wallowing in frustration and confusion? And please enlighten me of the country you've taken back. I must have missed that information somewhere.

"Men" like Buchanan are natural "leaders" for these Americans.

Buchanan is for all practical purposes retired. I value the man for what he has contributed, ideologically and the popular books he has written in his long career. Has he made mistakes? Sure, who hasn't? It's only totalitarian nazis and jewish komissars that denounce and exile folks because of mistakes made or slight deviations from doctrinaire, legalistic ideologies.

The wimpier, the more respectable and correct they are in the eyes of the judenrats who then use this effeminate behaviour against them for further gain.

Laughable. Just look where you're posting your comments, Ruffin.

This is why they've been pushed so far in a single direction for a century.

And you haven't? Where is Ruffin's sovereign kingdom? Again, I haven't heard of it.

They still can't understand where their "carefulness" goes wrong.

It's not about carefulness. We simply disagree with nazis and that's why the nazis attack paleo-cons with a fervor only known to jewish komissars. They simply cannot brook any dissension.

Ruffin

2003-11-01 20:31 | User Profile

Example?

Richard Early.

And who are those people exactly?

I said they were "conservatives", "paleos", etc.

Who is wallowing in frustration and confusion?

See above.

And please enlighten me of the country you've taken back. I must have missed that information somewhere.

I'm not the one arguing for it. Conservatives do. I make fun of it because it's usually spoken of in the context of reforming the system or working within its present bounds.

Buchanan is for all practical purposes retired. I value the man for what he has contributed, ideologically and the popular books he has written in his long career. Has he made mistakes? Sure, who hasn't? It's only totalitarian nazis and jewish komissars that denounce and exile folks because of mistakes made or slight deviations from doctrinaire, legalistic ideologies.

I love the obligatory grouping of "totalitarian nazis" with "jewish komissars". As if they had both introduced the world to the concepts of heaven and hell.

Laughable. Just look where you're posting your comments, Ruffin.

I've expressed my admiration of your level of tolerance before, Tex, although it does seem to have decreased lately.

And you haven't? Where is Ruffin's sovereign kingdom? Again, I haven't heard of it.

They're the famous "red zone" from the 2000 election map. I'm in the "doesn't count" zone with "nazis" and the like. They're the ones with the numbers, for all the good it's done them.

It's not about carefulness. We simply disagree with nazis and that's why the nazis attack paleo-cons with a fervor only known to jewish komissars. They simply cannot brook any dissension.

I've expressed some contempt. Paleos insist on lumping us in with Jewish commissars. Who is it that can't brook dissension without resorting to ludicrous comparisons?

Franco

2003-11-01 20:43 | User Profile

I will give Tex credit on one count: he IS very tolerant of views that do not dovetail with his own. He is providing a web platform for us WNs, and we are grateful. Very much so.

:) :) :) :) :)

ErikD

2003-11-01 21:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]As for Buchanan, he leaves himself vulnerable to the pennings of a Ponnuru because nobody knows what he stands for. He won't say "Jew," except in jest, and he won't say "White," preferring it to West. He has a fuzzy notion of what he wants but can't articulate what forms its basis and how to go about getting it. This may be, as some have noted, confusion brought on by Catholic universalism. Buchanan's a talented writer and his "Whose War" was a symphony, but it all falls apart because he won't say what's really driving him. That, because he may not even know, but that's charitable speculation.

Bravo Hugh... Bravo!

My guess is that Buchanan's mind is probably befuddled by religion. He's not completely sure what he wants or stands for, possibly because he's afraid of burning in hell, being castigated by Jewish Jesus in the afterlife, or being frowned upon by "God's" "chosen" in this life.

Ben Klassen of the COTC wrote extensively on the ability of the Christian religion to befuddle the minds of Gentiles, in his books "Nature's Eternal Religion", and "The White Man's Bible", available here:

[url]http://www.overthrow.com/creator/[/url]

"It's not "the west" that's dying. West is a direction. It's WHITES who are dying."

Priceless.

ErikD

2003-11-01 22:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Who is wallowing in frustration and confusion? And please enlighten me of the country you've taken back. I must have missed that information somewhere.[/QUOTE]

Tex, with all due respect, the Nazi's were at least able to take their own country back from the Jews. Most Conservatives probably don't even realize our country is controlled by Jews, and of those who do, very few will say it out loud. Conservatism in it's past or present form is completely powerless to counter the Jewish infestation. Only a race-centered movement has the power to dislodge them, and only the Nazis have a track record of having done so. It's hard to argue with success like that.

Okiereddust

2003-11-01 22:39 | User Profile

[QUOTE=triskelion]T.D. "And I've tried to stay awake, but I'm a busy man. Again, what you write comes off as very ecumenical, but my observation is all that goes out the window when real issues and/or conflict arise. That's just my observation, I speak for no one else."

I'd say the issue over Buchanan and Francis is as real as it gets, and if your actions speak for themselves, we are certainly missing something in the interpretation.

I still do not see, at the root, a rational basis for your attitude here of the complete superiority of national socialist doctrine over Francis's et. al. paleoism. Not unlike the Frankfurt School's attitude toward the inferiority of gentile nationalism vis a vis jewish ethnocentrism, it seems almost like you assume an a priori assumption of the intrinsic superiority of NS doctrine to any potential competitor.

I could wade through volumes of WN literature which you say disputes this, but as I doubt this will address the underlying issue - one's presuppositions - it continues to be low on my priorities list.

triskelion

2003-11-01 22:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I'd say the issue over Buchanan and Francis is as real as it gets, and if your actions speak for themselves, we are certainly missing something in the interpretation.

You have given zero attention to the abysmal failure seen by the paleo - con scene in the states, ignored examples of other appraoches that have been making head way else where and have no real knoweldge about any sort of National Socialist ideology because you refuse to do so for reasons known only to you. Your bringing up the Frankfurt School is not at all related to anything I have said on these topics. I know you won't read anything that contridicts your mis-educated notions on these topics that I have recomended to you and seem equally unwilling to even give an honest read to a few short articles I have written and given you links to on those matters. As a result, your refuation of a misconstrued National Socialism is as a shallow as my thoughts on thermodynamic theory. Given your baseless beleif that American style populism will get radically different results while doing exactly the same thing or that Buchanan has track recond better then the DPP it is obvious to me why the paleos are going nowhere and delighted about it.

Bardamu

2003-11-01 23:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]I will give Tex credit on one count: he IS very tolerant of views that do not dovetail with his own. He is providing a web platform for us WNs, and we are grateful. Very much so.

:) :) :) :) :)[/QUOTE]

I'm grateful too.

Okiereddust

2003-11-02 00:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=ErikD]It's hard to argue with success like that.[/QUOTE] If you consider a total gotterdam a success. One more "success" like that and we'll all be anhiliated.

Okiereddust

2003-11-02 00:26 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Bardamu]I'm grateful too.

Just remember this place needs debate in order to be interesting. I consider paleocons to be allies. Hopefully they consider WN to be allies as well. We do have a common enemy and a common danger. That should be plenty to base friendship on.[/QUOTE] WN's certainly don't consider "Squinty Pat" or "Canny Sammy" to be allies, and I consider them at least from their past efforts to have made them better allies of WN than I for one will ever be.

WN's and Paleo's certainly share common enemies. But that does not automatically makes them allies. It only makes them cobelligerants.

To become allies one requires more cooperation, mutual goodwill, and trust. The attitudes of so many WN's toward Francis or Buchanan shows that is not likely to happen, indeed that the dominant WN leadership faction is determined not to let that happen, viewing paleoism not as a potential allie but just as a recruiting ground, to be infiltrated and taken over if possible, and if not (as in the case Francis and Buchanan) , to be unambiguously and strongly attacked and ultimately destroyed.

Their continuing obstinance shows to me how little WN's cab adapt to changing circumstances or have learned from their failures, i.e. that of the Third Reich - etc.

It is an undying law of nature that species that cannot adapt to or learn from changing circumstances are destined for annihilation.

Franco

2003-11-02 00:48 | User Profile

Note for newbies: Squinty Pat -- a term found in most WN circles -- is not Buchanan. It refers to Robertson.

Bardamu

2003-11-02 01:58 | User Profile

Okie--

Hmm, so be your opinion of things. I never took Buchanan seriously enough to get exercised over whether people like him or not. You make him to be far more important than he is. Buchanan is a personal crusade of yours. In the larger patriotic movement he isn't important, especially now that he is politically retired. I didn't vote for him, and I should have, but then at that time I was still a Republican and was just beginning to research the Jewish question.

Like I say, I appreciate TD providing this platform for discussion.

triskelion

2003-11-02 03:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]WN's certainly don't consider "Squinty Pat" or "Canny Sammy" to be allies, and I consider them at least from their past efforts to have made them better allies of WN than I for one will ever be.

WN's and Paleo's certainly share common enemies. But that does not automatically makes them allies. It only makes them cobelligerants.

Their continuing obstinance shows to me how little WN's cab adapt to changing circumstances or have learned from their failures, i.e. that of the Third Reich - etc.

It is an undying law of nature that species that cannot adapt to or learn from changing circumstances are destined for annihilation.[/QUOTE]

Your criticisms are basically true about WN's in the states but for the reasons I pointed out almost all paleo-cons don't deserve any any allies as they are openly hostile to all forms of racialism so your criticisms are as equally valid of mainstream paleos like yourself. As to racialists in Europa (East and West) almost all are more then willing to openly support the better populist parties so your comments are not applicable here.

As to learning from failures your comments about Pat prove you don't recognize failure when it happens just as your refusal to reconsider American style populism is about as good an example of refusing to learn from failure as the die hard leftists pretending that statist economic policies and authoritarian style commands economies are functional.

As to the Third Reich it had numerous public policy successes and you never have recognized any of them. That those accomplishments were done under horrid conditions yet still provided the greatest economic recovery in history, the promotion of a flawed yet somewhat successful folkish society, massive technological progress, an end to usury and a great many other things are points you are simply unwilling to come to grips with. It's "failure" was that it was crushed by an alliance of Social Democratic and Bolshevik states with vastly superior numbers and strategic resources. The result was the rise of current order which is wildly hostile to any form of Occidental civilization which is now in danger of dying all to geather.

Almost all racialists that I know, even the states, are critical of at least some aspects of the Third Riech and no one that I have ever worked with talks about mimicing the parties of that era. In fact, I know plenty of racialists of all stripes that are destinctly un interested in the NSDAP as is the case with the ITP and a great many others. I think lots of leasons are to be learned from the Third Riech era and you have not leanred any of them and don't want to. within the American paleo scene criticisms of the old republic or the CSA are almost non-existant and that contrast says a lot about the level of introspection and the willingness to look forward between American paleos and European racialists. I recognize the substantial faults of that regime and I have moved on to embrace a more relavent and productive view of what it means to have a folkish outlook. Most that have come to a broadly simelar conclusion don't have the meta-politica background I do nor my interest in ideology which is fine. It's fine because they on some level grasp the dire straits we now face, have identified the limitations of populism and simple reaction and have embraced at least the tenor and essence of some form of the folkish gestalt although often ones different then mine. As a result, genuine nationalism matters in some parts of Europa and the better side of populism has gotten real successes in governance with the help of racialists.

ErikD

2003-11-02 04:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]If you consider a total gotterdam a success. One more "success" like that and we'll all be anhiliated.[/QUOTE]

Germany and the Nazis did their part in resisting the Communist Jews, but America entered war on the wrong side and destroyed Europe.

How is that Nazi Germany's fault?

If America hadn't entered the war and destroyed Germany and Europe, the White race wouldn't be in this mess right now.

I think that's one of the biggest problems with the Conservative Right Wing... their reluctance to recognize and admit that America fought on the wrong side of WW2.

Okiereddust

2003-11-02 04:31 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Bardamu]Okie-- Hmm, so be your opinion of things. I never took Buchanan seriously enough to get exercised over whether people like him or not. You make him to be far more important than he is. Buchanan is a personal crusade of yours. In the larger patriotic movement he isn't important, especially now that he is politically retired.

Me and TD suggested this might be the case too, but Triskelion soundly rejects it, and on consideration there is a strong degree of truth in what he says. Which is that Buchanan, as publisher of the leading paleocon publication (TAC) and with his prominence on television, still occupies a position of prominence far above any other paleoconservative, even if you ignore his legacy as paleoism's long time political standard bearer.

We and Triskelion may not agree on the merits of Buchanan and Buchananism but he does agree it is a lively question of great relevance to paleoconservatism, which will not go away, as long as there is a paleoconservative movement.

The fact that you never appreciated or participated in Buchananism in its heyday is probably linked to the reasons you still don't appreciate it now.

Okiereddust

2003-11-02 04:36 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Note for newbies: Squinty Pat -- a term found in most WN circles -- is not Buchanan. It refers to Robertson.[/QUOTE] That's not the way I'd heard VNN cognizant people describe it, or the way its been understood on the forum. Do any of the other Linder fans agree with you on this?

Okiereddust

2003-11-02 04:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE=ErikD]Germany and the Nazis did their part in resisting the Communist Jews, but America entered war on the wrong side and destroyed Europe.

How is that Nazi Germany's fault?

In a number of ways. We've discussed this before, but with Polish Noble gone, the con side lacks some of the necessary fireworks now.

If America hadn't entered the war and destroyed Germany and Europe, the White race wouldn't be in this mess right now.

I think that's one of the biggest problems with the Conservative Right Wing... their reluctance to recognize and admit that America fought on the wrong side of WW2.[/QUOTE]

And similarly with those NS lovers who refuse to admit tyhe Third Reich ever did anything wrong or had anything to do with its own demise.

ErikD

2003-11-02 05:43 | User Profile

Yes, the Nazis made mistakes, but they were at least successful in dislodging the Jews from power and taking their country back.

Conservatives have been trying to do the same for 50 years and have failed. Something needs to change.

Smedley Butler

2003-11-02 06:25 | User Profile

WN's and Paleo's certainly share common enemies. But that does not automatically makes them allies. It only makes them cobelligerants.

Their continuing obstinance shows to me how little WN's cab adapt to changing circumstances or have learned from their failures, i.e. that of the Third Reich - etc.

It is an undying law of nature that species that cannot adapt to or learn from changing circumstances are destined for annihilation.[/QUOTE] Sir, there is a world of difference between Patsy and Dr.Sam Francis. Sort of like Claude Debussy, compared to Patsy and the Archie's. The W.N.'s I have read most all are truly grateful to him, no matter what has been said about him.. As for Patsy, those of U.S. who stung by him, for most part just ignore him....... I personally will send Sam a gift for Christmas, and I am far from loaded...

Franco

2003-11-02 21:00 | User Profile

We and Triskelion may not agree on the merits of Buchanan and Buchananism but he does agree it is a lively question of great relevance to paleoconservatism, which will not go away, as long as there is a paleoconservative movement.

Tell me again how Pat Buchanan is good for Whites. I've heard him say maybe 3 words of "kinda-sorta" nationalist bent in the past 12 years. This is good for Whites.....how??

Ditto Francis.

As if we have decades before we start getting tough with our enemies [nope]. Paleocons should have Named The Jew in 1965, all across the board, in magazines, radio shows, etc., not just hinted at "Likkudniks" like they do today. Why didn't they? They had the numbers. The Jewish Achilles Heel is that they have few numbers.

Yes, I understand that they are mainstream and so forth. But if a dozen top paleos Name The Jew at once, it will embolden others. Look at VDARE -- there is no doubt that that KMacD essay about neocons emboldened many of their type.

Okie needs to grasp that the paleos failed America. Yet he avoids that issue and attacks WNs instead.

Okiereddust

2003-11-02 22:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Paleocons should have Named The Jew in 1965, all across the board, in magazines, radio shows, etc., not just hinted at "Likkudniks" like they do today.

Noone else ever names the jew enough for you Franco. And if they did, you'd still find something bad to say about them.> Why didn't they? They had the numbers. The Jewish Achilles Heel is that they have few numbers.

LOL. There are many times more jews - even politically active jews - than there have ever been paleocons, (or their 1965 equivalent)

Yes, I understand that they are mainstream and so forth. But if a dozen top paleos Name The Jew at once, it will embolden others. Look at VDARE -- there is no doubt that that KMacD essay about neocons emboldened many of their type. Add that to [url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=10821&page=1&pp=20]The Myths of White Nationalism[/url].

Okie needs to grasp that the paleos failed America. Yet he avoids that issue and attacks WNs instead.[/QUOTE]Everybody's failed but you guys of course. The old Hitlerian response.

Smedley Butler

2003-11-02 23:12 | User Profile

Dr.Revilo, left the Bircher's and exposed the false flag operation's. As for Okie, I do not know if you are white, or just willfully against saving U.S. It will be left the citizen's not a Cabal of treason... The Treason of F.D.R. led U.S. to our present mess... Feeling's are not fact's, but I have a feeling that there is NOT a single white forum in world not monitored by the hate groups who tell U.S. we hate when standing up for our freedom's and heritage. Jew's factually engineered giving U.S. open borders of a non white invasion, low wage's, shortage's, terror, stress, and a dis-functional sick anti U.S. interest media.. It is a disgrace the most of the older people today have betrayed U.S., their parent's and their heritage. Remember poll's done in the fall of 1941 were 90% against the WAR, especially on the side Boshevik murdered Russia. Which lead directley to Korea and my youngest uncle getting his toes froze off in that Mongol hell hole. Israel placed a M.D. in 1948 in Peking for Mao, and I read he stayed till 1960. I do not believe it was Russia that gave China the capabilty test a atomic weapon's in 1964. That was after J.F.K.'s dimise and L.B.J. taking the heat off inspection of the Domoi, that J.F.K. demanded. Interesting that the U.S. has all kind's of new police state law's, but still has open border's and pushe's for more refugge's against our will.. Clean water, and freedom is no joke......

Smedley Butler

2003-11-02 23:52 | User Profile

I want to make mention of the older patriot's though most of them are not active, they are some who are active and are of the VERY best we have, fighting for U.S. Ed Toner is one of these men, and a patriot. If we had an honest goverment that represented U.S. it would award Ed Toner a medal of Freedom, by the way that is ED's real name... Thank you Ed Toner....

Ruffin

2003-11-03 03:01 | User Profile

Since this thirty-some year old white man from Texas has described GL Rockwell as a lunatic, I thought some here who may not have heard Rockwell, would like to. I hope y'all appreciate the time difference, since these are older than Tex. In the last two, taped at Brown Univ., hear Rockwell's opinion of "conservatives", who, in spite of what "okie" thinks, did outnumber Jews. For any who're frightened away by the organizational name, Rockwell addresses that too.

The sound quality is poor at the beginning and occasionally during the first four, but only for what amounts to about 5% of the total, which is approx. two and one half hours.

[url]http://www.americannaziparty.com/rockwell/materials/audio/portrait1.ra[/url] [url]http://www.americannaziparty.com/rockwell/materials/audio/portrait2.ra[/url] [url]http://www.americannaziparty.com/rockwell/materials/audio/portrait3.ra[/url] [url]http://www.americannaziparty.com/rockwell/materials/audio/portrait4.ra[/url] [url]http://www.americannaziparty.com/rockwell/materials/audio/brown1.ram[/url] [url]http://www.americannaziparty.com/rockwell/materials/audio/brown2.ram[/url]

Smedley Butler

2003-11-03 07:24 | User Profile

Ruffin, I heard these and read his book. I truly believe that most all white men who can think and have I.Q.'s above 105, would have an epiphany to read and know the fact's of this couragous Patriot, leader, thinker, and family man who took them all on, because he awoke himself and was filled horror to the truth of what had happened to U.S. His epiphany if I remember right was when in 1952 he was steamed up to support Douglas MacArthur for president.... How many on the regular's on O.D. know who put story's out that Mac, was an American Hilter etc.? So guess who did put those storie's out, and piled up the money up for Ike the Kike who later at the behest of A.D.L liar/lawyer's in 55 pressured him to send ACTIVE duty 101st Airborne troops with fixed bayonet's to force Little Rock ARK. white girls to go to school with Congoids... Lovely huh? Reality ain't a b..... One more thing, I do not mean all those who will or can see the truth of George Rockwell, will want to play with the symbols that George used, but will honor his courage and fortitude for U.S. still..Salute!

Ruffin

2003-11-03 16:48 | User Profile

Thanks, Smedley. Rockwell, like Alex Linder and like Hitler, and certainly like the Jews, understood the different levels of advertising that are required to reach different levels of society. I think he even wrote a piece on it. Buchananite or "conservative" methods have been doomed for the fifty years or so they've been used because they're narrow and timid and fall all over themselves to denounce "nazis" and "haters" more loudly than do the Jews. They care more about appearing "respectable" than getting their message out. Check the movement-oriented forums and see how much attention is payed to "distancing ourselves from the Third Reich" or this or that. That's fine if one wants to reach a tiny handful of pseudo-intellectuals, but it ain't a movement and never will be because the largest level of society is the least intellectual. Look at "they hate us for our freedom". Is the bulk of the Jews' efforts intellectual?

The Jews have overplayed their hand lately in a big way, and that's why I think a loud, offensive campaign is called for rather than eternal whispering. Much of the world is fed up with the actions of the US government and Jews are screaming about a different case of "anti-semitism" every day. If white men sit mumbling to themselves instead of making a big stinking issue out of it, the Jews will recover from their stretch and conservatives will cling to the safe holiness of the Jews. But if the Jews are pushed further they're likely to lose their self-control.

Smedley Butler

2003-11-03 19:32 | User Profile

Ruffin, people at large really know nothing about George's combat record in the pacific theater of shooting down Japanese planes and that he was a U.S.N. Commander, after 20 years he was courtmartialed to be discharged, because of the supremecist hater's howling how could he be a U.S.N.R. Commander etc.etc. I read his court record, truly a gentleman and I truly believe the officer's conducting the trial had no more choice in the out come, than did U.S.N. Captain Ward Boston on the Liberty cover up.. [url]www.ussliberty.org[/url] One thing about the supremecist's they can lie and twist facts on dime, while putting on a face of concern, rathter than laughing.. I do think they can believe their own lies as they are important to hold on too, as a these lies are like cracks in a dike and each one no matter how small must defended are they will lead to all the truth, to come flooding in..

edward gibbon

2003-11-03 23:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Texas Dissident Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruffin "Conservatives", or "paleos", or whatever term they've escaped into this week, have absorbed the redefinition of the white man's role as a brave attacker of nations which cannot defend themselves, instead of as protectors of their own society - at all costs.[/QUOTE]

Example?

[QUOTE=[B][COLOR=Red]Ruffin[/COLOR][/B]]Richard Early.

I said they were "conservatives", "paleos", etc.

See above.

I'm not the one arguing for it. Conservatives do. I make fun of it because it's usually spoken of in the context of reforming the system or working within its present bounds.

I love the obligatory grouping of "totalitarian nazis" with "jewish komissars". As if they had both introduced the world to the concepts of heaven and hell.

I've expressed my admiration of your level of tolerance before, Tex, although it does seem to have decreased lately.

They're the famous "red zone" from the 2000 election map. I'm in the "doesn't count" zone with "nazis" and the like. They're the ones with the numbers, for all the good it's done them.

I've expressed some contempt. Paleos insist on lumping us in with Jewish commissars. Who is it that can't brook dissension without resorting to ludicrous comparisons?[/QUOTE] I have done far more than "name the Jew". I have written of deeply disturbing facts that demolish many arguments proffered by them to excuse their behavior. Ruffin and friends are only comfortable among themselves interchanging childish rants and reassuring one another. I have done something far more intellectual.

Ordinarily I support free speech, but for this website to become a refuge for Nazi-like posters like Ruffin and his crew we will discourage most of the lurkers and many that we wish to convert. I deeply suspect those like Ruffin who use the anonymity of the internet to post vile assaults to be cowards.

I would also like to repeat that if I were to get my hands on Leland Gaun, I would break his bones. To allow that filthy gutless creature write what he did was a mistake of the first order.

Ruffin

2003-11-04 00:09 | User Profile

Things COWARDS do:

Threaten people on the internet (or anywhere they can't actually make good on their threats).
Use "nazi" derogatorily (or any other intended epithet for a people who are powerless).
ALWAYS side with the powerful.

Smedley Butler

2003-11-04 00:54 | User Profile

The majority U.S. prior to Dec. 7 were against the Bolshevik force's in the whore house that it had become on a grand scale. I dare say, From Herbert Hoover, Will Roger's, John C. Calhoun, and all the founder's of this U.S. would have been on Commander Rockwell's side, as tried to fight the treason and tyranny.. This has nothing to do with the N.S. of the Reich; this has do with George Rockwell the Patriot, the combat vet, who knew Vaudville and was using his knowlege of it for doing all that he could do to fight the Treason. Ed, I have passed your book around and repaired the cover, there is no fight between U.S. I would like to think their is only a mis-understanding. Our open border's and genocide is not funny.. A small machine and die tool business where I live has laid off their only two employee's because of the treason, say I. One more thing, I am not in cahoot's with any one, the only poster's I know much about are you, Toner, and L.A.Refugee, so if I agree with a poster, it is based on the content not some behide the scene stuff. Hope the book sales are good....

edward gibbon

2003-11-04 01:05 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Smedley Butler]... [COLOR=Red]Ed, I have passed your book around and repaired the cover, there is no fight between U.S.[/COLOR] I would like to think their is only a mis-understanding. Our open border's and genocide is not funny.. A small machine and die tool business where I live has laid off their only two employee's because of the treason, say I. One more thing, I am not in cahoot's with any one, the only poster's I know much about are you, Toner, and L.A.Refugee, so if I agree with a poster, it is based on the content not some behide the scene stuff. Hope the book sales are good....[/QUOTE]Thanks for buying it. I hope it helped you win arguments. I honestly believe that if the contents were more widely known, things would change in this country.

Ruffin

2003-11-04 01:49 | User Profile

I honestly believe that if the contents were more widely known, things would change in this country.

So saith conservatives for over fifty years. "Just the facts, ma'am."

In America, facts must be packaged and advertised graphically or they may as well not exist. Unfortunately, this is beneath the dignity of conservatives.

Bardamu

2003-11-04 03:28 | User Profile

I just purchased your book. $28 is kind of expensive for a paperback. What the hell. I hope you are a good writer.

Texas Dissident

2003-11-04 07:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ruffin]In America, facts must be packaged and advertised graphically or they may as well not exist. Unfortunately, this is beneath the dignity of conservatives.[/QUOTE]

Ruffin, since by all accounts you are a fellow Southron, I pray the Good Lord blesses ya, but I gotta wonder if sometimes you're just talkin' out your @ss and simply lappin' up the mainstream media propaganda like every other mindless, American moron. While you continue to focus on nationally known entities like Buchanan and Fleming, it doesn't seem to cross your mind to look at what's staring you in the face.

Not to blow my own horn, but outside of Stormfront and VNN, what other site/forum is putting out the kind of information you want to see given exposure on a more widespread/popular basis than OD, a site/forum run under the banner of traditional conservatism, bought and paid for for almost 3 years by a self-identified paleo-con? Our numbers have tailed off as of late, but at the height of the latest invasion into Iraq our Alexas were hovering around 12 to 15000!

Now you may take issue with how certain information is presented or framed here, and that's a legitimate gripe. But to say that all of what you're looking for is beneath the dignity of conservatives is just flat-out ridiculous. As I've stated before, I have my reasons for maintaining the identity of this site as a home for traditional conservatives and I believe they are well-founded and critical to keeping the level of discussion we enjoy here. When you and other 'purists' keep taking hard shots at what has been built up here over three years, I have to wonder if your true purpose is to simply tear it down so the end result is one less platform for folks like you and I to say our piece and get our views on things a public hearing. And then you wonder why I react in a hostile manner at times. C'mon, man.

Smedley Butler

2003-11-04 08:40 | User Profile

Every forum with any point of view out side of NYC, L.A. and the District of Criminals is hacked, harrassed, to the point of shut down, like Sam Francis Forum, and then earlier this year CofC.C. forum went down.. Ruffin, every freedom loving white man with any knowledge of what our history is and what is happening is rightly angry, outraged, and must keep our heads.. If your caught in a rip tide, ride it out, don't fight it, so your just end on on another part of the beach. I suggest our job for now is to keep our head's and try to wake up as many as possible and not fight or waste our time on idiots, as we do not need 50% and no movement in the history of societie's has had that number, nor needed it.. This is for keep's as you and all U.S. who read or post here know that. Pace our selves, be persistant, but be smart on every move.. We are demonized by the N.P.R. idiots who just this past Sunday night had another Holy Cost survior being interviewed like he was HOLY, OY!...
As for Ed Gibbon's post, he is a good man, and some post got him going and I did not follow it close enough to comment, but Ruffin, stay on track and the post of Commander Rockwell is very worthy for those who do not know about the man, because he was about U.S. and he was a real brave patriot fighting against great odds.. He was much more than the vehicle he used to get attention to fight the treason and murderous Bolshevik's genocidal attack on U.S. All real patriot's will come to a consensus.... Night

mwdallas

2003-11-04 15:29 | User Profile

"Squinty Pat" is Pat Robertson.

W.R.I.T.O.S

2003-11-06 12:03 | User Profile

WN's and Paleo's certainly share common enemies. But that does not automatically makes them allies. It only makes them cobelligerants.

Their continuing obstinance shows to me how little WN's cab adapt to changing circumstances or have learned from their failures, i.e. that of the Third Reich - etc.

It is an undying law of nature that species that cannot adapt to or learn from changing circumstances are destined for annihilation.[/QUOTE]

There is a big difference between Buchanan and Francis. In my view, Francis falls on the WN side, Buchanan does not. Buchanan seems not to really know what he believes. Either that, or he is deliberately deceptive. Francis has been criticized by some WNs for being to cautious in his writing. And there is no such thing as "the dominant WN leadership faction" in America.

arkady

2003-11-07 14:31 | User Profile

Sometimes I have the feeling that the reason we never seem to get anywhere in our battle against the forces of darkness is that the only people we are allowed to attack with impunity are each other.

Moishe and Shlomo must get a huge laugh out of watching White men wasting their energies gnawing each others' bones in public forums while The Tribe keeps its dirty laundry in-house and moves from victory to victory.

And people still wonder why the numbers on this forum have dropped.

triskelion

2003-11-07 20:21 | User Profile

"Sometimes I have the feeling that the reason we never seem to get anywhere in our battle against the forces of darkness is that the only people we are allowed to attack with impunity are each other."

It seems right and proper to attack establishment charlatans that have consumed vast amounts of energy, time and money of sincere Eurocentrics while producing nothing of tangible benefit as a result of their personal and ideological short comings. It seems untenable to simply pretend that the occasional utterances of things we like to hear (while overlooking electoral incompetence and undefendable statements by the same person) is someone worthy of support by those concerned about our destruction as a people.

"Moishe and Shlomo must get a huge laugh out of watching White men wasting their energies gnawing each others' bones in public forums while The Tribe keeps its dirty laundry in-house and moves from victory to victory."

Such is the natural outcome of deluding our selves that replicating methods that have never reversed Occidental destruction will do so in the future. Such is the natural outcome of pretending that some leader will bring us to a painless victory via using the establishment that hates us. Such is the natural outcome of pretending that some ill-defined systemic collapse will allow us to take over. Such is the natural outcome of ideological shallowness, hazy nostalgia and a failed populism being accepted as a practical basis for political activism and thought.

"And people still wonder why the numbers on this forum have dropped."

Well I think that the numbers are still pretty good and this forum is still very viable. The reason the numbers have dropped is partly do the new software, partly do to the recent banishments but mostly it's a result of rampant defeatism that is so much a part of the American "right". I've seen numerous American racialist & conservative forums dry up and die not because of censorship, hackers or trolls (although those things are pretty common) but from simple apathy from would be political soldiers and activists. That dovetails quite well with the very marginal level of public activism seen which is in turn a sign of ideological shallowness and defeatism. Bitching and moaning is easier then activism, defeatism is easier then bitching and moaning. That reality explains a lot of our troubles and ideological poverty explains a large portion of the reasons for the current morass of defeatism and disinterest.

Okiereddust

2003-11-08 00:13 | User Profile

[quote=triskelion]Such is the natural outcome of deluding our selves that replicating methods that have never reversed Occidental destruction will do so in the future. Such is the natural outcome of pretending that some leader will bring us to a painless victory via using the establishment that hates us. Such is the natural outcome of pretending that some ill-defined systemic collapse will allow us to take over. Such is the natural outcome of ideological shallowness, hazy nostalgia and a failed populism being accepted as a practical basis for political activism and thought.

Well I think that the numbers are still pretty good and this forum is still very viable. The reason the numbers have dropped is partly do the new software, partly do to the recent banishments but mostly it's a result of rampant defeatism that is so much a part of the American "right". I've seen numerous American racialist & conservative forums dry up and die not because of censorship, hackers or trolls (although those things are pretty common) but from simple apathy from would be political soldiers and activists. That dovetails quite well with the very marginal level of public activism seen which is in turn a sign of ideological shallowness and defeatism. Bitching and moaning is easier then activism, defeatism is easier then bitching and moaning. That reality explains a lot of our troubles and ideological poverty explains a large portion of the reasons for the current morass of defeatism and disinterest.

Careful Trisk. It strikes me you are as defeatist in your own way, and bitch and moan, as much as any of the people you criticize, albeit it is a defeatism and bitching of the sort you are comfortable with. It is one soundly grounded in your thick dialectics which justifies what seems to a lot I'm sure an elitist obscuritanism. For different reasons as the hardcore VNNers, but with the same results, it seems to have great difficulty refusing to acknowledge the virtues of any point of view but your own.

We can't wait for WN to produce the appropriate supermen we think we deserve before we act, that is if we wish to produce something this side of Heaven or Vahalla.

triskelion

2003-11-08 03:12 | User Profile

"Careful Trisk. It strikes me you are as defeatist in your own way, and bitch and moan, as much as any of the people you criticize, albeit it is a defeatism and bitching of the sort you are comfortable with."

I point out in great detail why certain approaches to the struggle don't work and detail methods and ideas that show realistic but cautious grounds for optimism. Not doing those things but instead bemoaning the results of refusing consideration of anything but that which has repeatedly failed as is the case with paleos is nothing but willful self deception falsely portrayed as ppragmatism. Doing that is far easier then introspection about three generations or so of populists and paleo-cons in the states going nowhere so that's what will be done it seems that along with misrepresenting racialism as nothing more then the farce that is the American racist scene is all that will be done.

"It is one soundly grounded in your thick dialectics which justifies what seems to a lot I'm sure an elitist obscuritanism."

To those that are not familiar with a canon of thought any thing from it is deemed "elitist obscuritanism" but calling it such in no way detracts from the virtues of that ideology nor does it refute the deep flaws of mainstream paleo thinking. Those that are serious about saving their nation and inquisitive ask for clarification, which I always provide, when exposed to something they view as obscure and then honestly evaluate that disposition. Those interested in avoiding ideas they don't hold or unconscious self marginalization fail to do so and instead pursue failed options with dogmatic adherence. Such is the case with numerous ultra-leftist sects, anarchists, most of the American racist scene, some segments of monarchist opinion and mainstream paleo-cons. By the way, I do not adhere to dialectics nor any form of determinism nor Spenglerian style pessimism as I am sure you know.

" For different reasons as the hardcore VNNers, but with the same results, it seems to have great difficulty refusing to acknowledge the virtues of any point of view but your own."

I have tried very hard to understand why you persist in viewing me like Linder and the only thing I can guess is that it's easier then addressing what I say. The only VNN contributor that I feel a kinship for is my old compatriot from the SFOL days Paul Westman who does have an outlook very close to mine. As to points of view other then mine I regularly work with populist, monarchist and racialist groups of a very wide variety as well as Christian, Pagan and academic groups of a very diverse spectrum as well pay deference to many ideological schools. Your statement to the contrary is utterly without truth.

"We can't wait for WN to produce the appropriate supermen we think we deserve before we act, that is if we wish to produce something this side of Heaven or Valhalla."

Well I never claimed that anyone I work with is superman but I can see that you'll take the absence of one to doggedly defend the failure that is mainstream paleo-conservatism and reject that which has shown real progress else where.

Okiereddust

2003-11-08 07:48 | User Profile

[QUOTE=triskelion]"Careful Trisk. It strikes me you are as defeatist in your own way, and bitch and moan, as much as any of the people you criticize, albeit it is a defeatism and bitching of the sort you are comfortable with."

I point out in great detail why certain approaches to the struggle don't work and detail methods and ideas that show realistic but cautious grounds for optimism. Not doing those things but instead bemoaning the results of refusing consideration of anything but that which has repeatedly failed as is the case with paleos is nothing but willful self deception falsely portrayed as ppragmatism. Doing that is far easier then introspection about three generations or so of populists and paleo-cons in the states going nowhere so that's what will be done it seems that along with misrepresenting racialism as nothing more then the farce that is the American racist scene is all that will be done.
" For different reasons as the hardcore VNNers, but with the same results, it seems to have great difficulty refusing to acknowledge the virtues of any point of view but your own."

In other words, you aren't denying that you bitch and moan :crybaby: about the others, re: paleo's, "fetischists" and others in the rest of the movement (speaking in a very broad sense), but you think your style of criticism is superior.

Granted, poor style and methodology is a basic part of the polemical term. But I don't see exacty that your style and methodology is all that you say it is. You always refer to volumes of references we should read and have a very good encyclopediac knowledge of rightist movements in the world which is of considerable value, that is true.: :smartass:

When we come though to to what I think are the key parts in your critique of the non-so-doctrinarily racialist right however such as the supposed superiority of the racialists achievements vis a vis ours or the compatibility of racialism/NS vis a vis sympahetic conservative thinkers such as Moeller, it seems to me you always come up short.

As to Linder and the broad mass of VNNdom, your rhetorical style and most other things about you are certainly vastly different. However on what I think are the key points dividing racialist/WN thought from paleoconservatism of any sort, it strikes me and I think most others would agree with me, that you line up in a straight formation with them.

The most important of these points you share regard your idee fixe of the supposed vast superiority of the tactics and accomplishments of WN's over paleo's, rooted in the former's supposed vast superiority of tactical political knowledge regarding anti-parliamentary politics and their dogmatic rejection of compromise on fixed racialist principles. :wallbash:

I don't see this at all, interestingly enough. Maybe it merits a separate thread, but I think if you looked carefully at the political picture globally you could make a much better argument from the raw facts concerning which is doing better, conservatism or racialism, that it is conservatism that has made the real and considerable progress, while racialism has been the abject failure politically. This is what the neocons do, so we paleo's tend to avoid it, but their arguments for dicing paleoconservatism's failure as a product of its racialism etc., and against the racialists in general, reasonably viewed are more convincing than the racialists arguments against the paleo's lack of success being based on their lack of racialism.

Neo's and mainstreamers would argue in fact, that if WN at times seems to have advantages vis a vis traditional conservatism, that is in large part to WN's ability to feed off in a non-symbiotic way certain things from paleoism, without giving anything in return. The remaining legal protections WN's enjoy in what remains of a free society for instance it owes to the constitutional liberties paleo's retain, and which WN's continualy attack paleo's for even as they sometimes cynically continue to take advantage of such freedoms. :thumbd:

Texas Dissident

2003-11-08 08:26 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Neo's and mainstreamers would argue in fact, that if WN at times seems to have advantages vis a vis traditional conservatism, that is in large part to WN's ability to feed off in a non-symbiotic way certain things from paleoism, without giving anything in return. The remaining legal protections WN's enjoy in what remains of a free society for instance it owes to the constitutional liberties paleo's retain, and which WN's continualy attack paleo's for even as they sometimes cynically continue to take advantage of such freedoms.[/QUOTE]

A brilliant paragraph, Okie. One that almost perfectly states the point I've been pounding on the podium here for a while now, seemingly only to the sound of crickets chirping.

Okiereddust

2003-11-08 10:03 | User Profile

[quote=okiereddust]Neo's and mainstreamers would argue in fact, that if WN at times seems to have advantages vis a vis traditional conservatism, that is in large part to WN's ability to feed off in a non-symbiotic way certain things from paleoism, without giving anything in return. The remaining legal protections WN's enjoy in what remains of a free society for instance it owes to the constitutional liberties paleo's retain, and which WN's continualy attack paleo's for even as they sometimes cynically continue to take advantage of such freedoms.[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]A brilliant paragraph, Okie. One that almost perfectly states the point I've been pounding on the podium here for a while now, seemingly only to the sound of crickets chirping.[/QUOTE] One doesn't expect the hardcore WN's to listen of course. Bt it certainly is true that when WN talk about the state suppresion they are undergoing from political correctness these days, they almost always use language and methods that could be pulled right out paleo's constitionalist handbook. One which they personally have little truck with. There is of course a difference in someone like Triskelion, who continues to try to maintain some sort of synthesis between conservatism and nationalism/racialism, and the hardcore VNNers. But people like Triskelion have always been a minority and actually somewhat of a fringe element within WN to the extent they seriously insist on retaining this conservative allegiance.

What is key here point here in regards to the mainstream/neo critique of paleoism is that it in fact is very close to the WN/NS critique of paleoconservatism.

Both neoconservativism and WN/NS insist that conservatism is fundamentally different and antithetical to nationalism, and conservatives who make accommodations for nationalism must inevitably consent to being totally swallowed up by it and abandoning their conservatism or continuing life as trivialized and ineffective conservatives, a crique to which WN/NS enthuisiastically agree with. The criticism of paleoism as a failure is the sole content of both neocon and WN/NS discourse on paleoconservatism, and it is really almost exactly the same.

I think it is quite telling here in fact that the current high priest of racialism, Alex Linder, in fact had a pristine neocon pedigree as a successful American Spectator writer. The political background of WN's in general seems, so often originating as it does in libertarianism, is along these lines quite close to neoconservatism. Greatly unlike paleoconservatives.

Of course this is as one would expect according to the theories of Kevin MacDonald, who points out National Socialism was basically mirror-image Judaism. It's ideological descendents today reflect this perfectly, constantly berating paleoconservatives and traditionalists for their resistance to Jewish type attitudes, philosophies, practices, and political methods, and boastfully repeating ad infinitum that as longas they continue to think and act like stupid goy nothing is going to change.

triskelion

2003-11-08 23:21 | User Profile

Okie: "In other words, you aren't denying that you bitch and moan about the others, re: paleo's, "fetishists" and others in the rest of the movement (speaking in a very broad sense), but you think your style of criticism is superior."

No you simply are not reading what I wrote again. You refuse to address what I say because you can't so you purposely mis-portray what I write as that's easier then thinking critically.

Okis: "Granted, poor style and methodology is a basic part of the polemical term. But I don't see exactly that your style and methodology is all that you say it is."

Of course you don't, but considering that you think Buchanan has achieved more then the DPP when such a claim is ludicrous in the extreme I don't expect other wise.

Okie: "You always refer to volumes of references we should read and have a very good encyclopedic knowledge of rightist movements in the world which is of considerable value, that is true."

In point of fact I am privileged to know and know of a great many people that have far more knowledge of ideology then I but your opinion on that matter is well received. However, it is true that if you wish to understand a school of thought you should read it's canon. Barring that, you should consider my presentations of the schools in question and read the shorter articles I have referred you to. That you don't and act as if the short articles I have written are some how impenetrable when literally a couple of hundred Americans have stated how concisely I have presented my weltanschauung I simply do not believe that you have not grasped what I have said. Rather, it seems that your emotional attachment to Buchananism has utterly prevented you from accepting any critique of mainstream American paleo-conservatism.

Okie: "When we come though to what I think are the key parts in your critique of the non-so-doctrinarily racialist right however such as the supposed superiority of the racialists achievements vis a vis ours or the compatibility of racialism/NS vis a vis sympathetic conservative thinkers such as Moeller, it seems to me you always come up short."

Given that you claim to not understand my ideological make up and given that you have never attempted to address any aspect of it your statement is utterly without support. As to Moeller I note that you lack any knowledge of his impact upon major NSDAP figures which is easily corrected by reading the single best text on the subject which I referred you to several times. Talking about the matter without reading it is a bit like speaking of Hobbes without having read "Leviathan" or "Behemoth". It reminds of an exchange with you about Othmar Spann in which your details about his imprisonment were wrong and you failed to note the numerous favorable reverences to him in various NSDAP theory organs or that he was restored to his post at the University of Vienna from Ã¢â¬Ë42 - Ã¢â¬Ë44 (when the war led to it being shutdown). You prefer to discussing material your not familiar or reject it out of hand while refusing to honestly consider what I have said but instead simply declare it as obscure and lacking in some unstated manner. As a result, dialog with you is impossible.

Okie: "2. As to Linder and the broad mass of VNNdom, your rhetorical style and most other things about you are certainly vastly different. However on what I think are the key points dividing racialist/WN thought from paleoconservatism of any sort, it strikes me and I think most others would agree with me, that you line up in a straight formation with them."

That statement is the single best indication I have yet seen that demonstrates your conscious refusal to understand my positions and grossly distort them. I have no idea who would be willing to embrace such a counter factual position, other then you and Tex, but it certainly would not be the VNN fans here and not would be any European racialist that I have ever dealt with.

Okie: "The most important of these points you share regard your idee fixe of the supposed vast superiority of the tactics and accomplishments of WN's over paleo's, rooted in the former's supposed vast superiority of tactical political knowledge regarding anti-parliamentary politics and their dogmatic rejection of compromise on fixed racialist principles."

Given your indefensible and patently irrational refusal to realize what a dismal failure mainstream paleos have been in the states when contrasted with the success of racialists and principled populists (who are supported by racialists) in places France, Italy, Hungary, Poland and Danmark I simply can't take your comments seriously. Of course you persist in lying that I am dogmatic and reject compromise and working those that differ from me proving your simply not capable of rationality on these matters.

Okie: "I don't see this at all, interestingly enough. Maybe it merits a separate thread, but I think if you looked carefully at the political picture globally you could make a much better argument from the raw facts concerning which is doing better, conservatism or racialism, that it is conservatism that has made the real and considerable progress, while racialism has been the abject failure politically. This is what the neocons do, so we paleo's tend to avoid it, but their arguments for dicing paleoconservatism's failure as a product of its racialism etc., and against the racialists in general, reasonably viewed are more convincing than the racialists arguments against the paleo's lack of success being based on their lack of racialism."

Given your bizarre refusal to recognize that the DPP has been far more successful in effecting government policy then Buchanan combined with your continued dishonest attempts at grossly distorting my views I have zero desire to continue any exchanges with you on these topics any longer. I will of course continue to present my case but I'll limit my responses to those that show some indication of a willingness to consider what I say with some measure of honesty.

Okie: "Neo's and mainstreamers would argue in fact, that if WN at times seems to have advantages vis a vis traditional conservatism, that is in large part to WN's ability to feed off in a non-symbiotic way certain things from paleoism, without giving anything in return. The remaining legal protections WN's enjoy in what remains of a free society for instance it owes to the constitutional liberties paleo's retain, and which WN's continually attack paleo's for even as they sometimes cynically continue to take advantage of such freedoms."

Okie: Yeah sure. WN's fed of Buchanan by giving his incompetent presidential bids money, time and votes when he never endorsed them and betrayed paleos. Of course you still defend him and ignore the steady stream of very anti-conservative statements he makes and pretend that his shocking electoral incompetence is real progress. You claim paleos have had legal victories in protecting civil rights in the states yet provide no evidence which is not surprising given they have lacked even a regional electoral base since the Wallace era and have no influence within the GOP. Of course I'd love to hear what great constitutional triumph paleos have achieved lately that has somehow eroded the judicial gains of the left but forgive me if don't hold my breath. Of course the racial scene in the states has been an unmitigated flop as well but you'll continue to pretend that I'm just like them because you're lacking any credible critique of my views or activities which is why seem intent on lying about me being some sort of absolutist that works with no one when the reality is drastically different.

Okie: "But it certainly is true that when WN talk about the state suppression they are undergoing from political correctness these days, they almost always use language and methods that could be pulled right out Paleos's constitionalist handbook. One which they personally have little truck with."

Actually, your totally wrong as usual. No racialist or decent populist in any European nation mimics paleo style legal babble. Your claiming that racialists in the states do shows an underlying commonality between paleos and racists in the states which is something you deny exists so consistency is something clearly lost on you. That racists in the states are often enthralled to paleo legal fantasies is simply yet another clear indication why both go nowhere.

Okie: "But people like Triskelion have always been a minority and actually somewhat of a fringe element within WN to the extent they seriously insist on retaining this conservative allegiance."

That last statement is excellent proof that you know nothing of European nationalism. I have provided mountains of evidence to the contrary of what you assert above but you have read none of it and refuse to. I can guarantee that I would be far more accepted then you by groups as diverse Action FranÃÂ§aise, the NDP, the DPP, Dissolution-Unite Radicale, Synergies Europeennnes and the Confederation for Resurgent Tradition and a great many others. Of course given your inability to honestly consider what I do believe rather then your fantasy that I'm like Linder it would be absurd to expect you to realize how wrong you are. As to being fringe, the electoral successes of those I back tower over the dismal failures of paleo-cons like Buchanan so your assertion is dismissed easily and factually. Naturally, I note that you say nothing whatsoever that challenges any aspect of my ideology but instead simply call it fringe as a way to dismiss it without consideration while overlooking that you yourself recently said that there is no such thing as mainstream paleo-conservatism and you even used the term fringe to describe it.

Okie: "Both neoconservativism and WN/NS insist that conservatism is fundamentally different and antithetical to nationalism, and conservatives who make accommodations for nationalism must inevitably consent to being totally swallowed up by it and abandoning their conservatism or continuing life as trivialized and ineffective conservatives, a critique to which WN/NS enthusiastically agree with. The criticism of paleoism as a failure is the sole content of both neocon and WN/NS discourse on paleoconservatism, and it is really almost exactly the same."

If you actually had read some small portion of the material I recommended to you rather then simply declaring anything you haven't read as obscure and their for without merit or if you actually knew something about nationalism in Europa you wouldn't make such baseless inanities and I could take your comments seriously. Although I guess if your delusional enough to confuse my ideology with Linder's I shouldn't be surprised your confused or dishonest enough to see me as having a view of mainstream paleo-cons that's equivalent to the standard neo-con position

Okie: "I think it is quite telling here in fact that the current high priest of racialism, Alex Linder, in fact had a pristine neocon pedigree as a successful American Spectator writer."

I think it's quite telling that your obsessed with Linder and unable to understand that most European racialists hold him in contempt. Also telling is that your overlooking that Linder hates what the American Spectator has become and that his views are very far removed from what they were when wrote for them.

Okie: "Of course this is as one would expect according to the theories of Kevin MacDonald, who points out National Socialism was basically mirror-image Judaism. "

Here Okie proves that he knows nothing about any form of National Socialism. What MacDonald said about the NSDAP regime is not relevant because he's not an expert on the regime's ideology, nor a historian and has never claimed to have such expertise. He did correctly point out is that the NSDAP regime was an expected reaction to anti-German policies by the jewish establishment but say that they are mirror images of each other is grossly dishonest and moronic.

Okie: "It's ideological descendants today reflect this perfectly constantly berating paleoconservatives and traditionalists for their resistance to Jewish type attitudes, philosophies, practices, and political methods, and boastfully repeating ad infinitum that as long as they continue to think and act like stupid goy nothing is going to change."

Yes paleos like your hero Buchanan really resist jewish thought when they condemn racism, defend the myth of assimilation, the lie that Western culture can exist separately from race, globally condemn Hitler like you do and say that American was right to fight for a multi-racial Europe by stopping the Axis. Things have really changed in the states thanks the brave paleos as is seen by the strong Buchananite faction in Congress and the stunningly successful paleo parties that have had so much local electoral success unlike the failures of the "fringe" Hungarian Justice and Life Party (MIEP), Liga Polskich Rodzin, Stronnictwo Narodowe, Front National or the Dansk Folkeparti. While nationalists in Europa lack "conservative" publications like TAC which write glowing defenses of Zionism and we lack you civil rights which the paleos have done such a wonderful job defending these past 60 years so you should have trouble pointing to the American equivalents of Radio Maryja and Radio Oasis. Obviously everyone agrees that the paleos have had great success at reducing immigration, deporting aliens, cutting welfare to those that remain and even discouraging marriages between white Americans and foreigners unlike some of the parties mentioned above.

Okie: "The political background of WN's in general seems, so often originating as it does in libertarianism, is along these lines quite close to neoconservatism. Greatly unlike paleoconservatives."

Yes I too have noted how forcefully paleos condemn capitalism. As a matter of fact, the TAC and Chronicles are far more opposed to free markets then are libertarian groups like GRECE, ITP, the NDP, the Integralists and the parties mentioned above. I too have noticed the adverts for distribtalist and guildist texts in American paleo publications while the libertarian groups the ITP, Liga Polskich Rodzin & the MIEP go to great lengths to reject such thinking while embracing usury which is something regularly condemned by American paleo-cons.

Given that racialists are so jew like in their thinking and neo-con mimics as you so perceptively pointed out what else can one expect? Unlike the free market devotees of Action FranÃÂ§aise which one will note would never support National Syndicalists and National Socialists like Daudet, Sorrel, Maulnier. The same can be said of all groups I support because after all, racialism is based upon libertarianism and jew inspired neo-con thinking so the statements and actions to the contrary by racialist groups and luminaries are clearly just a clever guise that Okie sees through. I can see now given the flawless grasp of National Revolutionary thought Okie has demonstrated above he clearly has no reason to read the works I recommended to him or consider what a philo-Semite and neo-con/libertarian like me has had to say as he has figured it all out. That explains why Buchananism has done so startlingly well, why the DPP has failed and white racialism is philosophically jewish while The Chronicles, TAC and Buchanan are the real Eurocentrics rather people like me.

Okiereddust

2003-11-09 00:35 | User Profile

[QUOTE=triskelion]Okie: "When we come though to what I think are the key parts in your critique of the non-so-doctrinarily racialist right however such as the supposed superiority of the racialists achievements vis a vis ours or the compatibility of racialism/NS vis a vis sympathetic conservative thinkers such as Moeller, it seems to me you always come up short."

Given that you claim to not understand my ideological make up and given that you have never attempted to address any aspect of it your statement is utterly without support. As to Moeller I note that you lack any knowledge of his impact upon major NSDAP figures which is easily corrected by reading the single best text on the subject which I referred you to several times. If you really had a case, you could go back to the original thread with my comment on this which you never answered, instead of just referring me again to several volumes I should read. If it's message is that good, you ought to be able to articulate a succinct summary. That goes in general for all your recommended voluminous reading. I don't think its needed to have an intelligent discussion on these topics, and if you try to maintain otherwise, you are a minority of one on these forums.

Talking about the matter without reading it is a bit like speaking of Hobbes without having read "Leviathan" or "Behemoth". It reminds of an exchange with you about Othmar Spann in which your details about his imprisonment were wrong and you failed to note the numerous favorable reverences to him in various NSDAP theory organs or that he was restored to his post at the University of Vienna from Ã¢â¬Ë42 - Ã¢â¬Ë44 (when the war led to it being shutdown). You prefer to discussing material your not familiar or reject it out of hand while refusing to honestly consider what I have said but instead simply declare it as obscure and lacking in some unstated manner. As a result, dialog with you is impossible. Impossible eh? You could always again just go back to the original thread, and pick it up, instead of just "bitching and moaning" that we can't have a reasonable discussion, like you are so want to do.

Okie: "The most important of these points you share regard your idee fixe of the supposed vast superiority of the tactics and accomplishments of WN's over paleo's, rooted in the former's supposed vast superiority of tactical political knowledge regarding anti-parliamentary politics and their dogmatic rejection of compromise on fixed racialist principles."

Over and above any of their ideological differences, I think every European thinks he's superior to Americans. This forum is a perfect illustration. European racialism is racing far above what the states will ever dream of accomplishing.

Except of course you have to smuggle works like Culture of Critique like we smuggle drugs, books that are perfectly above board here. Ditto for our forums. That's one of the reasons we aren't so eager to emulate your great success in Europe and all end up in jail for humming our national anthem while we work in our gardens, like they do in Germany.

I'm not going to get into a further discussion of Europe vs. America. That seems beyond the capacity of this forum to discuss without flame wars.

[quote=Triskelion]Given your bizarre refusal to recognize that the DPP has been far more successful in effecting government policy then Buchanan combined with your continued dishonest attempts at grossly distorting my views I have zero desire to continue any exchanges with you on these topics any longer. I will of course continue to present my case but I'll limit my responses to those that show some indication of a willingness to consider what I say with some measure of honesty.

Actually I wanted to have this thread extended. But on second thought it gets into this Europe vs. America thing anyway, which I'm starting to think we should avoid. I try to avoid it actually, except you try to bring it up to negatively contrast with our methods.

For now my position is European experience is irrelevant, until proven otherwise. If you want to show how much better your methods are, show where they have worked where they matter (to us at least) over here.

Okie: "But it certainly is true that when WN talk about the state suppression they are undergoing from political correctness these days, they almost always use language and methods that could be pulled right out Paleos's constitionalist handbook. One which they personally have little truck with."

I was thinking specifically of Paul Fromme and the Canadian Free Speech League. You're could be right about European racialists regard of constitutional protections etc.

Of course that might be because in Europe you have none, and you do very well, (here you supposedly are such a big success) just to stay out of jail.

Okie: "But people like Triskelion have always been a minority and actually somewhat of a fringe element within WN to the extent they seriously insist on retaining this conservative allegiance."

That last statement is excellent proof that you know nothing of European nationalism.

I was talking about over here again, and VNN, not trying to comment on the European situation. And I think you pretty much agree with me vis a vis VNN, in fact you gripe that I don't give you and VNN enough distance. (Not that I don't blame you - no one can be blamed for wanting to distance himself from that place - nothing personal Franco).

Okie: "Of course this is as one would expect according to the theories of Kevin MacDonald, who points out National Socialism was basically mirror-image Judaism. "

We would have to look at what he said in detail and carefully to be sure exactly what he said. But to go to calling the greatest writer that has ever hit American WN at least in recent memory "grossly dishonest and moronic" and one you've personally gone to jail for (to your great credit) means I think you've had a long day.

triskelion

2003-11-09 04:31 | User Profile

Okie: Ã¢â¬ÅIf you really had a case, you could go back to the original thread with my comment on this which you never answered, instead of just referring me again to several volumes I should read. If it's message is that good, you ought to be able to articulate a succinct summary. That goes in general for all your recommended voluminous reading. I don't think its needed to have an intelligent discussion on these topics, and if you try to maintain otherwise, you are a minority of one on these forums.Ã¢â¬Â

With regard to Moeller I referred you to a single book, not several volumes. I did so because your totally ignorant of the subject and as you had nothing to say from any base of knowledge that is the only sensible recourse. As to other exchanges yes itÃ¢â¬â¢s true that I have mentioned lots of books but I also presented lots of ideas quite well and briefly according to many of people that wrote me to say so. You havenÃ¢â¬â¢t had anything to say on those topics worth reading because your dishonest in your portrayal of my positions and you persists in the notion that what you donÃ¢â¬â¢t know isnÃ¢â¬â¢t worth knowing and reject any idea out of hand if it encroaches on your dogma. After your spasm about racialists being like jew inspired neo-cons & libertarian youÃ¢â¬â¢ve proven yourself dishonest and noxious. I have no interest in dealing with such a person.

Ã¢â¬ÅImpossible eh? You could always again just go back to the original thread, and pick it up, instead of just "bitching and moaning" that we can't have a reasonable discussion, like you are so want to do.Ã¢â¬Â

Yes, impossible. Your willful ignorance combined with your dishonest portrayal of my views can leave no other option.

Ã¢â¬ÅOver and above any of their ideological differences, I think every European thinks he's superior to Americans. This forum is a perfect illustration. European racialism is racing far above what the states will ever dream of accomplishing.Ã¢â¬Â Again I see your forced to lie about what I said as your position is undefendable.

Ã¢â¬ÅExcept of course you have to smuggle works like Culture of Critique like we smuggle drugs, books that are perfectly above board here. Ditto for our forums. That's one of the reasons we aren't so eager to emulate your great success in Europe and all end up in jail for humming our national anthem while we work in our gardens, like they do in Germany.Ã¢â¬Â

Yet the fact remains that for your additional freedom youÃ¢â¬â¢ve got nothing to show for it in political terms which is why you canÃ¢â¬â¢t and wonÃ¢â¬â¢t address your electoral failure nor recognize what has been accomplished by those I support.

Ã¢â¬ÅI'm not going to get into a further discussion of Europe vs. America. That seems beyond the capacity of this forum to discuss without flame wars.Ã¢â¬Â

After your grotesque lying about my positions and your insults you started a flame war. I wonÃ¢â¬â¢t continue it as itÃ¢â¬â¢s pointless and IÃ¢â¬â¢ve got real life politics to deal with. You can have the last smear, the last lie, the last fallacy without protest.

Ã¢â¬ÅActually I wanted to have this thread extended. But on second thought it gets into this Europe vs. America thing anyway, which I'm starting to think we should avoid. I try to avoid it actually, except you try to bring it up to negatively contrast with our methods.

"For now my position is European experience is irrelevant, until proven otherwise. If you want to show how much better your methods are, show where they have worked where they matter (to us at least) over here.Ã¢â¬Â

Your methods donÃ¢â¬â¢t and have never worked. If your not willing to see that then are truly well suited to you. I could care less what your position is as the fact is the parties I back have genuine accomplishments behind them. Nothing else need be said.

Ã¢â¬Åwas thinking specifically of Paul Fromme and the Canadian Free Speech League. You're could be right about European racialists regard of constitutional protections etc.Ã¢â¬Â

Ã¢â¬ÅOf course that might be because in Europe you have none, and you do very well, (here you supposedly are such a big success) just to stay out of jail.Ã¢â¬Â

Do I have civil rights? Of course not. I do function effectively in the public political sphere in any case and the parties I support have done far more then Buchanan ever has inspite of oppression and the lack of millions in federal funding, a plutocratic family and mainstream media access to count on. In 10 years paleos in the states wonÃ¢â¬â¢t exist because they simply donÃ¢â¬â¢t have the strategic sense or courage or of conviction to act, let alone act effectively, in public. Your hero Buchanan has thrown his principles out the window with no threat of legal punishment let alone violence so itÃ¢â¬â¢s no wonder Buchananism is a spent force if it ever was one. As for Canada, IÃ¢â¬â¢ve never raised the matter and neither have you so doing so within the context of my beliefs is at best irrelevant.

Ã¢â¬ÅI was talking about over here again, and VNN, not trying to comment on the European situation. And I think you pretty much agree with me vis a vis VNN, in fact you gripe that I don't give you and VNN enough distance.Ã¢â¬Â

Yea right. You portray me for the hundredth time as being like Linder while earlier you say IÃ¢â¬â¢m a fringe element which is also a lie as is the entire context of your comments in your last post. If you talk about me, my activities or beliefs within the context of Linder thatÃ¢â¬â¢s dishonest unless it a direct reply I was making to some comments about him.

Ã¢â¬ÅWe would have to look at what he said in detail and carefully to be sure exactly what he said. But to go to calling the greatest writer that has ever hit American WN at least in recent memory "grossly dishonest and moronic" and one you've personally gone to jail for (to your great credit) means I think you've had a long day.Ã¢â¬Â

It is grossly dishonest and moronic to say that the NSDAP regime is a mirror image jewry. MacDonald is an excellent authority on evolutionary psychology with regards to jewry in the Occidental world. He is not an expert on the Third Reich, the ideology of the regime or any sort of NR thinking or history.

After your dishonest portrayal of my views and racialism in general as jewish like and inspired by neo-con/libertarianism I have nothing to say to you about anything.

Okiereddust

2003-11-09 08:11 | User Profile

[quote=triskelion]After your dishonest portrayal of my views and racialism in general as jewish like and inspired by neo-con/libertarianism I have nothing to say to you about anything.

Reminds me of another famous quote

War is a great clarifier. It forces people to take sides. The paleoconservatives have chosen Ã¢â¬â and the rest of us must choose too. In a time of danger, they have turned their backs on their country. Now we turn our backs on them.[url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=5648]

David Frum: Unpatriotic Conservatives -A War On America[/url]

In regards especially to paleoconservatives it is so instructive to see how great minds - be it neo-nazi or neo-conservative - not only think alike but talk alike.

MadScienceType

2003-11-10 17:16 | User Profile

Neo's and mainstreamers would argue in fact, that if WN at times seems to have advantages vis a vis traditional conservatism, that is in large part to WN's ability to feed off in a non-symbiotic way certain things from paleoism, without giving anything in return. The remaining legal protections WN's enjoy in what remains of a free society for instance it owes to the constitutional liberties paleo's retain, and which WN's continualy attack paleo's for even as they sometimes cynically continue to take advantage of such freedoms.

How do paleos retain any of these liberties? I'm not being flip, I'm sincerely interested. Theoretically, you could credit the ACLU for retaining liberties as well, but I would hardly label them "paleos."

I gotta respectfully disagree with some conclusions here. Paleos have been around a lot longer than WN, which has only been an organized (to put it generously) movement for around two decades, not counting Rockwell's abortive attempts. Anyway, seems to me, paleos have fought with one hand behind their backs in the sense that (here it comes!) they don't identify the root enabler of culturally destructive forces, the Jew. Instead, they focus on minutiae and dusty theory that, while sound and no doubt interesting to the scholarly among us, does not a darn thing to combat the visceral propaganda the masses were and are exposed to nearly 24/7. Although their efforts may have had a slowing effect (which I think is debatable) it certainly didn't even begin to halt or reverse the downward spiral. If you're weren't going to N.T.J.Ã¢âÂ¢ in the good ol' days, when probably 75+% of the populace agreed with you and before they'd been multi-culted and PC'ed into cowed submission, when the heck are you going to do it? That's not to dismiss the contributions of paleo scholarship and work out of hand, since I think any serious political movement absolutely needs a sound and logical base in order "anchor" the overall apparatus, but I don't think we need to denigrate those who use cruder methods. As wintermute has pointed out on another of these periodic Linderite vs. Paleos thread, the methods need not be at odds. I make personal exception of the costume fetish and "88" crowd (these types do sometimes show up on the VNN letters page). Yes, yes, I know Linder has spent no small amount of time haranguing "Canny Sammy" and Jared Taylor, etc. and I think it spiteful and unecessary, but I can understand his frustration. Sticks and stones, you know? Unless Alex shows up at Sam Francis' house with a tire iron and a murderous look in his eye, then let the guy rant on his own little corner of the web. I also care not about his anti-Christian rhetoric. That's his personal choice and again, sticks and stones. If he somehow takes over as Grand Poobah and outlaws Christian faith, we got differences, but failing that, who cares? Relax, and pray that he finds his way back, if you've a mind to. Besides, A thousand Alex Linders couldn't do the damage to Christianity of one Gene Robinson. If Linder's as useless as you think, then just ignore him and keep reading VDare and sending money to all the viable paleo candidates out there.

If you'll allow me a little waxing allegorical, I see the paleo scholars as the archers. They're pretty good and know their trade, but they're a thousand yards out for fear of getting exposed and attacked, sending an occasional barb the enemy's way that falls far short, does little and no one notices anyway. Meanwhile, the WN crowd of barbarians runs up to the castle and begins beating on the door with clubs, just as uselessly, taking all the slings, arrows and boiling oil, but providing cover for the archers to sneak closer, should they choose to do so instead of scoffing at the unkempt ruffians dirtying up their perfectly neat battlefield and all. Francis has been edging a little closer with his fairly recent hammering on "Likudniks" and the like, which I'm sure Alex Linder finds insufficient, but hey, if they're not sitting still or going backwards, then it's a net gain, IMO. Meanwhile, the goy tax slaves, tethered 'round the neck and toiling in the garden, really have no idea what's going on, as the folks up there in the battlements with the view are the same ones holding the reins, so it's no wonder they've got a dim view of the filthy, uncouth critters assailing their fair city, beacon of light that it is.

This really is a war, and the enemy is that way...

Texas Dissident

2003-11-10 20:06 | User Profile

I can't speak for Okie, but there's nothing he states here I disagree with, but rather would heartily endorse, so I'll try to answer some of your questions, MST.

[QUOTE=MadScienceType]How do paleos retain any of these liberties? I'm not being flip, I'm sincerely interested. Theoretically, you could credit the ACLU for retaining liberties as well, but I would hardly label them "paleos."

Retaining constitutional liberties as a fundamental part of a proffered, coherent ideological framework or platform, as opposed to the totalitarianism of national socialist doctrine. As to the ACLU, I've always thought that as things continue to devolve here in the States the ACLU may become a dissident's best friend to the extent they stand firm on their stated principles of free speech, etc.

I gotta respectfully disagree with some conclusions here. Paleos have been around a lot longer than WN, which has only been an organized (to put it generously) movement for around two decades, not counting Rockwell's abortive attempts.

Actually, I think what is defined as paleo-conservatism is a rather recent 'movement' that had its beginning in the fracturing of the Republican party over things like the Bradford appointment just 15 or 20 years ago. There's a Francis article around here somewhere that details this. I don't know about WN as I've only been exposed to it in the last couple of years since starting this board. I think it's fair to say that both are relatively young in the greater scheme of things. Paleo-conservatism may seem older in that it draws on and tries to retain fundamental American traditions and freedoms, i.e. the good things about America, whereas WN is more or less revolutionary. I think that's a critical distinction, absent any value judgement on my part.

Anyway, seems to me, paleos have fought with one hand behind their backs in the sense that (here it comes!) they don't identify the root enabler of culturally destructive forces, the Jew.

Two possibilites here: 1) Paleo-cons simply don't agree with that opinion, or 2) the jury is still out on the greater efficacy of that approach.

Instead, they focus on minutiae and dusty theory that, while sound and no doubt interesting to the scholarly among us, does not a darn thing to combat the visceral propaganda the masses were and are exposed to nearly 24/7.

To some extent, I think you are focusing too much on the thinkers and ideologists of paleo-conservatism, instead of the every day Americans you interact with who possess a world view very consistent with paleo-con ideology. And I have yet to see any non-mainstream group that has accomplished anything significant to combat the visceral propaganda you mention. This is a problem that affects all of us.

Although their efforts may have had a slowing effect (which I think is debatable) it certainly didn't even begin to halt or reverse the downward spiral.

Again, I think paleo-conservatism as we would define it is a relatively new philosophy born out of the reaction to the cultural shifts you mention, but nevertheless, I could state the exact same thing about white racial consciousness. The more you go back in time, the stronger it was and it failed to halt or reverse the downward spiral, also.

since I think any serious political movement absolutely needs a sound and logical base in order "anchor" the overall apparatus, but I don't think we need to denigrate those who use cruder methods.

If you review everything, I believe you'll find that the attacks originated and persisted from the 'cruder method' contingent. Some of y'all should direct your appeals to them.

As wintermute has pointed out on another of these periodic Linderite vs. Paleos thread, the methods need not be at odds.

I'm not too sure about that. In fact, I grow more and more convinced they are at fundamental odds.

If he somehow takes over as Grand Poobah and outlaws Christian faith, we got differences, but failing that, who cares? Relax, and pray that he finds his way back, if you've a mind to.

Well, I don't cotton to totalitarians of any stripe and I don't think you do either. Isn't it better to strangle that baby in the crib than let it grow to adulthood?

I understand and appreciate your appeal here, but sometimes there are real, fundamental differences that even qualifiers like 'race' cannot overcome. I think it is better to get some of these critical things squared away before any real efforts are made to move forward on any level.

Texas Dissident

2003-11-10 22:17 | User Profile

The Francis article detailing the neo paleo conservative split: [url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=29]Neo-Con Invasion[/url]

Texas Dissident

2003-11-10 22:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Neo's and mainstreamers would argue in fact, that if WN at times seems to have advantages vis a vis traditional conservatism, that is in large part to WN's ability to feed off in a non-symbiotic way certain things from paleoism, without giving anything in return. The remaining legal protections WN's enjoy in what remains of a free society for instance it owes to the constitutional liberties paleo's retain, and which WN's continualy attack paleo's for even as they sometimes cynically continue to take advantage of such freedoms.[/QUOTE]

Further to the above, I think this comment is born out of the frustration some of us self-defined paleos are experiencing as the result of almost three years of dialogue with white nationalists/national socialists, starkly evidenced by the above exchange between Okie and the usually mild-manered triskelion. White Nationalist Socialists (WNSs) never tire of criticizing paleos for things like clinging to constitutional liberties and the Old Republic, while at the same time using boards like this one as a base to launch their assaults. In other words, taking advantage of our ideals, examplified by an effort to maintain free exchange of ideas here on this board, only to denigrate them in return. Having bent over backwards to accomodate the WNSs and costing us a number of old friends along the way, and dealing with seemingly the most conciliatory of the WNSs in triskelion, we witness their continuous refusal to grant even the smallest concession that Dr. Francis' work has been an asset to our greater cause here in the States. This is why I call WNS ideologically totalitarian and start to question whether any working relationship, formally or informally, could ever bear any fruit. I find it hard to imagine that if by some act of God the WNSs ever came to power, that these totalitarian tendencies would somehow disappear. Quite the contrary, I can only envision another oppressive state of a different flavor and one that I don't exactly relish helping to enable. Better the devil you know and all that.

Now somebody help me out if I have it all wrong here, but that's just the way I see it now.

Franco

2003-11-11 00:27 | User Profile

Look at the gulf between paleo and WN this way, Tex:

WNs get a warm, fuzzy feeling thinking about thousands of Jews -- and their helpers -- hanging from lampposts in the distant future. A severe-but-logical way to remake the White Republic once and for all, not just part-way or kinda-sorta-maybe.

Paleos get a warm and fuzzy feeling thinking about how we are all gonna "vote our way back to a Republic as long as the dude running for office is a White Christian." Ain't gonna happen, even if that person running is Pat B.

Texas Dissident

2003-11-11 00:50 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Look at the gulf between paleo and WN this way, Tex:

Then what? Utopia? This is a massively delusional fantasy, Franco. Right alongside with "workers of the world unite" and Greenpeace-type, "back to the Garden" fruitcakes.

Paleos get a warm and fuzzy feeling thinking about how we are all gonna "vote our way back to a Republic as long as the dude running for office is a White Christian." Ain't gonna happen, even if that person running is Pat B.[/QUOTE]

You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what paleo-conservativism is all about, Franco. I suspect you read too much of Linder's drivel and therefore have a one-sided, distorted view of a propagandist with questionable motives. I also suspect that you are young and full of idealism, piss and vinegar. Those aren't bad things mind you, but take a good, close and hard look at the path you are choosing to go down. Linder's way is the wrong way and will only lead to loss, dejection and depression. The paleo way is the high road that builds on the firm foundation of true, Western civilization and the only philosophy that holds a sustainable promise of a better tomorrow for free White men.

I know that advice will fall on deaf ears in your case, but I feel compelled to offer it to you anyway. And don't go away thinking that you care more about what kind of future white folks will have than me. I have three young, white children that I get-up every day to make sure their needs are taken care of.

Take care.

Franco

2003-11-11 01:30 | User Profile

Tex wrote:

You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what paleo-conservativism is all about, Franco.

Well, I beg to differ, since I was a paleo at one time.

But, the bigger question is this: how can paleoism triumph when 80% of them do NOT put racial issues FIRST, but rather second or third?

Since the West is built on race [Whites], that question is key. Please address that.

Mithras

2003-11-11 01:50 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Further to the above, I think this comment is born out of the frustration some of us self-defined paleos are experiencing as the result of almost three years of dialogue with white nationalists/national socialists, starkly evidenced by the above exchange between Okie and the usually mild-manered triskelion. White Nationalist Socialists (WNSs) never tire of criticizing paleos for things like clinging to constitutional liberties and the Old Republic, while at the same time using boards like this one as a base to launch their assaults. In other words, taking advantage of our ideals, examplified by an effort to maintain free exchange of ideas here on this board, only to denigrate them in return. Having bent over backwards to accomodate the WNSs and costing us a number of old friends along the way, and dealing with seemingly the most conciliatory of the WNSs in triskelion, we witness their continuous refusal to grant even the smallest concession that Dr. Francis' work has been an asset to our greater cause here in the States. This is why I call WNS ideologically totalitarian and start to question whether any working relationship, formally or informally, could ever bear any fruit. I find it hard to imagine that if by some act of God the WNSs ever came to power, that these totalitarian tendencies would somehow disappear. Quite the contrary, I can only envision another oppressive state of a different flavor and one that I don't exactly relish helping to enable. Better the devil you know and all that.

Now somebody help me out if I have it all wrong here, but that's just the way I see it now.[/QUOTE]

You are pretty much right. The only form of authoritarian dictatorship that is worth advocating is one to ensure a Utopia of freedom, blood, and advancement of essential principles. To construct a state of snitches and dictators of simple conduct, stamping out anything one doesn't like is to create your own prison. Thus I believe absolute power is neccessary for certain things but treacherous if abused.

Exelsis_Deo

2003-11-11 04:09 | User Profile

Hey Gang. Ron from Rhode Island.. I voted for Pat in 2000. Did you ? DID YOU ??? What do you think would have happenned if he won ??? Think about how different it could have been and weep for this land. Pat Buchanan is BAR NONE the best person to be President.
We've had enough of sell-outs.

Franco

2003-11-11 04:55 | User Profile

Well, since Pat B. is NOT a nationalist in any form, I must wonder how Pat. B would have saved us.

We must do more than simply step a few paces away from Israel.

Yes, he would have been better than George W., but...

Texas Dissident

2003-11-11 08:44 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]But, the bigger question is this: how can paleoism triumph when 80% of them do NOT put racial issues FIRST, but rather second or third?

Since the West is built on race [Whites], that question is key. Please address that.[/QUOTE]

Franco, if the West was built on race, then why isn't race given the blame for our current sorry situation, much less looked at as the answer to the problems we are facing? It is simply shortsighted and blind spot thinking to believe that race is the answer while not sharing any fault for problems that have arisen while it already existed. You see what I'm saying? We've always had our race so why did it not prevent the societal and cultural problems from happening in the first place?

The answer is simple and easy. There is something higher, and that something is belief. The collective belief system of a people are what truly animates them and propels their culture. Race is a factor, I'm not stating that it isn't. But in a true heirarchy of concerns it's proper place is second or third. Paleoism has it right. The West as we know and enjoy its better fruit today was built by the dynamite spark of Christian belief and the white race.

It's just not enough to want to tear down and preach a gospel of hate and destruction, no matter the seemingly irresistable siren song of that kind of simple-minded message in our rotten age. In fact it is flat-out irresponsible and childish, and in no way worthy of the legacies of the great White, Western men that came before us and fought like hell for our birthright we too often take for granted. No, real men and real leaders seek out what is good, cherish and nurture it in order to build upon the foundations already laid in order to give their children and people the best possible advantages in the world to come. This is the true expression of love of your people, just like the love of a father for his own children. What kind of father raises his son teaching him to mindlessly tear down everything around him, thus ensuring a life of doubt, hate and misery? Yes, a sorry one indeed.

So again I ask you to consider the long-term consequences of each and every decision you make. Think hard about following the dictates and wildly irresponsible philosophies of men who live alone in their grandmother's basement pounding out senseless "revolutionary" manifestos on the internet. Think on what has come before you and what you hope for the future. Consider your people in your immediate surroundings. I know it is practically impossible for men who have not experienced being a father, but ponder your future family and children, how you wish to raise them and the values you want to instill. 'Cause when you get right down to it, that's what everything is all about. Game, set and match. If you ever get to experience looking into the eyes of your child for the first time you'll realize that sooner or later. That is what makes men. And that is love. It begins with your faith, then your family and then your people. That is paleo-conservatism, my friend. Not hate or mindless destruction, but love. Love in its proper order and the key to creating and sustaining a better tomorrow for those you care about the most.

Smedley Butler

2003-11-11 11:26 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]Hey Gang. Ron from Rhode Island.. I voted for Pat in 2000. Did you ? DID YOU ??? What do you think would have happenned if he won ??? Think about how different it could have been and weep for this land. Pat Buchanan is BAR NONE the best person to be President.
We've had enough of sell-outs.[/QUOTE] Hey, I have a used car, that was only used on Sunday's by a little ole lady to go to Church etc.. For you, I have deal, since your a supporter Pat Buchannan.... This is a Joke... Right...HAA!

Zoroaster

2003-11-11 12:42 | User Profile

Smedley,

I voted for Buchanan and, unlike some members of the forum, I'm honest enough to admit I was played for a sucker.

In the summer of 2000 I attended a Reform Party meeting and met Buchanan. I came away with the feeling that Buchanan and his "pitchfork brigade," which was in the process of taking over the party, were nothing more than disgruntled GOP YUPPIES on an ego trip. Compared to the Perot people, they were phonies.

If Howard Phillips and the Constitution Party had been on the ballot in Oklahoma, I would never have voted for Buchanan.

-Z-

Texas Dissident

2003-11-11 18:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Zoroaster]In the summer of 2000 I attended a Reform Party meeting and met Buchanan. I came away with the feeling that Buchanan and his "pitchfork brigade," which was in the process of taking over the party, were nothing more than disgruntled GOP YUPPIES on an ego trip. Compared to the Perot people, they were phonies.

Maybe that's just an Oklahoma thing, because my experience in Texas was completely the opposite.

If Howard Phillips and the Constitution Party had been on the ballot in Oklahoma, I would never have voted for Buchanan.[/QUOTE]

If wishes and buts were candy and nuts.... Fact is, PJB did the work necessary to get on the ballot and Phillips should have withdrawn and endorsed Buchanan. But that's all water under the bridge now, anyway.

Franco

2003-11-11 20:44 | User Profile

Tex wrote:

The problem is this: people who are against the White race came to power. Before about 1920, "racism" by Whites was standard in the West. Whites were superior, and they knew it. But then the Jew and the leftist came to power. Hence our current situation. The West was hijacked by special interests long ago, just like a carjacker would force a car to go somewhere that it was not going to go originally.

If Christianity was the answer to a country's problems, Mexico would be a paradise.

Bottom line? No Whites, no West. Paleos do not seem to grasp that fact. That is why I gave up being a paleo and became a WN.

Texas Dissident

2003-11-11 20:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]The problem is this: people who are against the White race came to power. Before about 1920, "racism" by Whites was standard in the West. Whites were superior, and they knew it. But then the Jew and the leftist came to power. Hence our current situation. The West was hijacked by special interests long ago, just like a carjacker would force a car to go somewhere that it was not going to go originally.

Not good enough, Franco. You're not answering the question. If race is the eternal solution, then how did those against the white race ever come to power in the first place? Whites had the power and were in control.

If Christianity was the answer to a country's problems, Mexico would be a paradise.

You're not reading what I'm writing, Franco. I plainly stated above that it was Christianity coupled with the white race.

Bottom line? No Whites, no West. Paleos do not seem to grasp that fact. That is why a gave up being a paleo and became a WN.[/QUOTE]

I knew that my appeal would fall on deaf ears. I can't make you acknowledge and respond to the truth that's right in front of your face. Ultimately each man is responsible for his own. Hopefully it had an impact on one or two other lurkers that are currently mulling over choosing the path of light vs. that of evil.

Franco

2003-11-11 21:20 | User Profile

Tex wrote:

Rank-and-file Whites did NOT control America. It was big-capitalist, I-don't-care-about-race-just-gimme-the-money types, and of course the Jews, and the leftists, who destroyed America. Rank-and-file Whites never had much of a say in which direction our country went, other than by voting for Jew-pal A or Jew-pal B.

By, say, 1933, America was becoming toast, culturally speaking. The NWO/JWO slaverly had begun. And again, Joe Sixpack could do nothing about it.

[I remember being shocked to read a schoolbook printed in about 1948 that blasted "White racism" and urged White children embrace the negro. That slavery to NWO/JWO began earlier than most people realize].

Franco

2003-11-11 21:22 | User Profile

Oh, yes, and "evil?" WN is "evil?" Awww, Tex...

Smedley Butler

2003-11-11 21:30 | User Profile

Franco and T.D. are both right...

Texas Dissident

2003-11-11 21:34 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Rank-and-file Whites did NOT control America. It was big-capitalist, I-don't-care-about-race-just-gimme-the-money types, and of course the Jews, and the leftists, who destroyed America. Rank-and-file Whites never had much of a say in which direction our country went, other than by voting for Jew-pal A or Jew-pal B.[/QUOTE]

Interesting that the Christian common man is now being given a free pass by you, but nevertheless, you still are not answering my question.

Texas Dissident

2003-11-11 21:35 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Oh, yes, and "evil?" WN is "evil?" Awww, Tex...[/QUOTE]

Didn't say that White Nationalism is evil. To be quite specific, I'm saying that Linderism is evil.

Franco

2003-11-11 22:14 | User Profile

Tex wrote:

Didn't say that White Nationalism is evil. To be quite specific, I'm saying that Linderism is evil.

Zounds! Since many on this very board follow Linder and his fun-filled rants daily, that is a bold, hand-grenade statement. Controversial, itz!

MadScienceType

2003-11-11 22:34 | User Profile

Tex,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply and the Francis article link. I'm mulling things over. I agree with you that the contention is there, my point is that it needn't be. There's blame enough to go around about who started what and who's poking and prodding. I just hate to see folks who are on what should be the same side attacking each other with the gusto of a starving man let loose at The Golden Corral. I feel like we're putting the intra-European rivalries that Polish Noble, Gaunt, et al brought over here to shame. I dunno, it just feels wrong and maybe I'm hopelessly naive, but I don't understand the level of animosity. Both sides seem to be expert at pushing the other's buttons.

I'll get back to this later. Kinda depressing is all.

I'm saying that Linderism is evil.

Could you define this a little for the peanut gallery? I know you covered it somewhat in an earlier post, but could you outline what you see as the basics of Linderism and what's evil about 'em?

il ragno

2003-11-11 22:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE]To be quite specific, I'm saying that Linderism is evil.[/QUOTE]

To be even more specific, this is as foolish a statement as I've seen posted here. But better 'evil' than 'stupid', by all means.

Smedley Butler

2003-11-11 22:39 | User Profile

No, I say T.D. has not said anything Controversial, as to Linderism's etc.. My feeling is that what ever "Evil Writing" Alex Linder writes, is because he feels we are up against "Evil, and we can't afford to take the path of a gentleman like, Robert E. Lee, or Douglas MacCarthur, or a Herbert Hoover, because of the evidence of what the power of money has done to the WEST.. Look at our Senate, what do you see, surely NOT a Robert A TAFT.... Is there a Senator now serving worth a bucket of cold spit? If there is, he will be driven from office before the next election as a hater or tax evider etc. You see what I am trying to say. This has has been along time coming, it fulminated IN NYC where I grew up in that hell, till 1968. We have a group who hate U.S. and has undermined U.S. for a serious 100 years in the U.S. These are a long range group of thugs.. Federal reserve act 1913, U.S. in Baloney WW1 war 1917, Hooey Weird tied up by 1917, anthropology departments locked by Boaz B.S. by 1922..Radio bought up or founded and the white Electronic's men gipped out of their rewards and regoniton etc.. Finally open border NON WHITE invasion, is Violent and a hateful evil used against U.S. As is HATE SPEECH, is for whites, to stop all resistance by polite law abiding whitey. HATE against whites is every day, and perpatrated by N.P.R./P.B.S./Rotarian empty headed Mammon worshipping fools...

Franco

2003-11-11 22:40 | User Profile

I can answer that one, Mad Science:

Typical paleo: "Linder is negative. He wants to tear down, not build up. He rejects all that is good. He rejects God. He hates women. He is just one big negative who is mad at the world."

Heh, heh. Am I right, Tex? Is that your take on Linder? Do paleos see it that way? Bet they do.

Texas Dissident

2003-11-11 23:33 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MadScienceType]...with the gusto of a starving man let loose at The Golden Corral.

Great line, MST.

could you outline what you see as the basics of Linderism and what's evil about 'em?[/QUOTE]

It's quite simple really.

nihilism: 1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths 2 a (1) : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility (2) capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination.

This is not the philosophy of responsible men who love their families and their people. Hence, it is evil.

Texas Dissident

2003-11-11 23:35 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]But better 'evil' than 'stupid', by all means.[/QUOTE]

To each his own, IR. We all have to lie down and sleep in the bed we make.

Okiereddust

2003-11-12 00:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Great line, MST.

It's quite simple really.

This is not the philosophy of responsible men who love their families and their people. Hence, it is evil.[/QUOTE]Nihlism of course is the essential part of Nietzsche and his philosophy, as well as those of his followers. Its vices is what I think makes rightists sympathetic to National Socialism and so hard to deal with.

That said, true National Socialists like our friend Franco aren't followers of reputable philosophers like Nietzsche and Burkhardt, they more are followers of people like Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and Joseph Gobineau. Franco may be incorrigably funny, but his views pretty much represent that of his set, that who I think Triskelion terms the costume-fetish set.

I haven't really studied Linder exhaustively, and I'm not sure what exactly this guy is or exactly what he's about, other than its not very good.

But I do think the spirit of Nietzsche seems to animate those smart people like Triskelion who seem to take the attitude of doctrinaire resistance to serious democratic efforts and those paleo's who, despite its defects, continue to take the attitude of support for our constitutional republic and its safeguards, men like Buchanan and Francis. It seems to have a precedent in the obstinent refusal of "German neo-conservatives" like Moeller and Spengler to support the Weimar republic.

While he may have his reasons, reasons which although frustrating in their rigidity I have to admit are to an extent thought out and if not fully reasoned, at least extensively rationalized, they are really an intractable barrier to those who see no alternative to the democratic procedures embodied by men like Francis and Buchanan if we want to have a reasonable hope of achieving real progress in this country.

Franco

2003-11-12 01:25 | User Profile

Okie wrote:

That said, true National Socialists like our friend Franco aren't followers of reputable philosophers like Nietzsche and Burkhardt

Saaaayyy....are you callin' me a Nazi? That's alleged Nazi to you...

Franco may be incorrigably funny, but his views pretty much represent that of his set, that who I think Triskelion terms the costume-fetish set.

Hey! -- I never wear costumes.........unless of course it's Saturday night, and ma gal KaShawna LaTanya LaShirley Kesheena ShaWanda LaTina Jones comes over for a little mattress mambo, knowwhatumsayin,' dawg? Then it be "Guess Which Feline I Am" time, complete with dem fake tails an' stuff! Hubba-hubba....word! Gitdown! Fo' sho!

:cowboy:

Franco

2003-11-12 01:52 | User Profile

Maybe Tex can also explain to us "evil pagans" how the 2 greatest White civilizations in world history -- Greece and Rome -- became great entities without Christianity aiding them? Just by accident?

:hitler:

Okiereddust

2003-11-12 02:00 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Maybe Tex can also explain to us "evil pagans" how the 2 greatest White civilizations in world history -- Greece and Rome -- became great entities without Christianity aiding them? Just by accident? :hitler:[/QUOTE] Well the Romans used race-mixing, supplemented by a little bit of the quintessential Greek virtue, fagottry. Too bad Friedrich Braun isn't around to further enlighten us on that.

Is that where you are going on us? LOL

Franco

2003-11-12 02:31 | User Profile

Duhhhhh...hey, you never gave faggotry a chance....heh, heh...[but seriously, not to defend fudge-packing, but if that is the worst thing you can say about Greece or Rome, your argument is faulty...]

[edited]

Okiereddust

2003-11-12 05:46 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Duhhhhh...hey, you never gave faggotry a chance....heh, heh...[but seriously, not to defend fudge-packing, but if that is the worst thing you can say about Greece or Rome, your argument is faulty...] [edited][/QUOTE] Careful...I might just decide if that's the way you guys feel The Pink Swastika thread needs revisiting. LOL

il ragno

2003-11-12 05:47 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Well the Romans used race-mixing, supplemented by a little bit of the quintessential Greek virtue, fagottry[/QUOTE]

Yeah, Franco! Ancient Greece and Rome were okay - in their own insignificant way, of course - but they're not even [I]comparable[/I] to The Glory That Was Oklahoma. Shame on you!

PS: even someone with a cursory knowledge of ancient history knows that 'faggotry' was the exception and [B]not [/B] the rule in both Rome and Greece, and overwhelmingly condemned as perversion. But of course you have to expect this sort of 'history' from the sort of folks who turn purple with rage when their own neck of the woods is characterized as a breeding ground for hillbillies with three teeth in their heads. Do unto others......

Hilaire Belloc

2003-11-12 06:26 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Yeah, Franco! Ancient Greece and Rome were okay - in their own insignificant way, of course - but they're not even [I]comparable[/I] to The Glory That Was Oklahoma. Shame on you! [/QUOTE]

Looks like il Rango is trying to hijack this thread and change the subject in something that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand! It's a bad habit of yours!

Okiereddust

2003-11-12 09:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Yeah, Franco! Ancient Greece and Rome were okay - in their own insignificant way, of course - but they're not even [I]comparable[/I] to The Glory That Was Oklahoma. Shame on you!

But of course you have to expect this sort of 'history' from the sort of folks who turn purple with rage when their own neck of the woods is characterized as a breeding ground for hillbillies with three teeth in their heads. Do unto others......[/QUOTE] So, what Hollywood show or witty New York media expert did you get this off of, Il Ragnowitz? You haven't been following this forum much lately I see. [url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=10830]Redneck Ruckus - Critics Say Humour About Poor, Working Class Rural Whites Crosses the Line[/url]

Apologize right now, or I'm siccing Rachel Rubin on ye!!!

il ragno

2003-11-12 11:25 | User Profile

It's as vicious and uninformed to characterize rural Americans as sister-climbers as it is to characterize Ancient Greece and Rome as championing sodomy. In the first place, it was more prevalent in Greece than Rome, but its prevalence in both societies coincided with the rise of decadence rose and the nearing of collapse. In the second place, there were no homosexuals as such but homosexual [I]acts[/I], yet even these were publicly scorned in Rome, where what homosexuality existed was mostly kept secret and usually described in texts of the time in Greek language as homosexuality was thought a Greek custom. Besides the fact that Roman life was male-centered to begin with and scorned all displays of male effimanacy, Roman males were allowed to freely consort with concubines and prostitutes without incurring social penalties or divorce actions: ie, whoring and priapism were all but officially [I]encouraged[/I]. Further, the [I]Lex Scantina [/I] officially made male homosexuality illegal.

I never fail to get a kick out of you, Okie. You ARE [I]Boobus Americanus[/I] to a fault; you'll believe any gay or Jew propaganda about the ancient world or Europe, but your back goes up every time your own get sullied. Well, if you want to [I]really [/I] get an earful of anti-Oklahoma slander, I suggest you go where [I]I [/I] went to hear the very worst sort - Texas and Louisiana. Non-stop vicious Okie-bashing, and not a "berg" in sight, either.

Texas Dissident

2003-11-12 16:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Yet I don't see how any of this diminishes the cultural contributions of Greece and Rome, even in their late periods. I'd rather have the decadence AND high culture than what we have today, which is decadence and no culture.[/QUOTE]

I'd rather have Oklahoma circa 1925.

:cowboy:

weisbrot

2003-11-12 18:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]It's as vicious and uninformed to characterize rural Americans as sister-climbers as it is to characterize Ancient Greece and Rome as championing sodomy.[/QUOTE]

How's that?

The characterizations of Greece and Rome are based, rightly or wrongly, on two thousand years of analysis of their writings and art. The negative characterizations of (mostly Southern) rural folk are based on sixty- seventy years of televitz, Hollywood and elitist NYC/West Coast attitudes- most of which are birthed by the Is It Good For The Jews? process.

Characterizing ancient Romans and Greeks as sodomites doesn't fulfill any practical modern-day agenda. Slandering rural folks today sure does. Besides, I doubt there are too many centurions around these days to threaten Abe's countless survivors of the total extermination.

Don't worry your head. Most Americans, when thinking of Rome and Italy, don't think of catamites and sodomites. They think of organ grinders with monkeys and shotgun slayings in the trattoria. So relax.

il ragno

2003-11-12 22:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE]They think of organ grinders with monkeys and shotgun slayings in the trattoria[/QUOTE]

Let them laugh at the organ-grinders all they want - so long as they remember the shotguns in mid-chuckle.

[QUOTE]Characterizing ancient Romans and Greeks as sodomites doesn't fulfill any practical modern-day agenda. Slandering rural folks today sure does. Besides, I doubt there are too many centurions around these days to threaten Abe's countless survivors of the total extermination.[/QUOTE]

I can hardly believe you said that! While we occasionally see the 'dumb hillbilly' stereotype these days, it's becoming less prevalent....but we have been drowning in the normalization of "catamites and sodomites" nonstop for the past two decades, and the battering ram demolishing traditional sexual mores in the West - besides 'we are born queer' - has been the worldwide enabling & encouraging of agenda-driven brunser 'historians' whose sole mission is to 'prove' that homosexuality is not only normal & natural but a necessary component of all great civilizations throughout history....and this sort of rear-entry revisionism (and if warping ancient social customs out of all accurate context isn't 'revisionist history',what is?) has been a vital component in the feminist movement as well (let alone all the feminist interpretation of world history courses now included in university curricula- often mandatory courses!). [I]Control the past and you control the future[/I].

Okiereddust

2003-11-12 23:05 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]It's as vicious and uninformed to characterize rural Americans as sister-climbers as it is to characterize Ancient Greece and Rome as championing sodomy.

Interesting parallel, but one with no real justification I can see, except you wanted to change the subject.

I never fail to get a kick out of you, Okie. You ARE [I]Boobus Americanus[/I] to a fault; you'll believe any gay or Jew propaganda about the ancient world or Europe, but your back goes up every time your own get sullied. Well, if you want to [I]really [/I] get an earful of anti-Oklahoma slander, I suggest you go where [I]I [/I] went to hear the very worst sort - Texas and Louisiana. Non-stop vicious Okie-bashing, and not a "berg" in sight, either.[/QUOTE]

Southerners and southwesterners do bash each other of course, city vs. country, different churchs and regions, etc. But its all in good fun, by and large.

Not at all really like the jokes you hear from outside the region, and of course to them we're all the same - happiness is 5000 Okies going home with a Texan under each arm - etc. And of course the thinking here is rather strongly influenced by the general Frankfurt School/New York Intellectual distain for rural white southerners, rural whites, and just whites in general.

If you listen to any of these jokes and analyze them, you will notice that a big part of the implicit criticism of rural southerners is of course their lack of diversity and social conservatism. The sister jokes really are just humorous alusions to all this.

Which is why I wonder when I hear these type of tired snideness from VNNer types - except when one realizes in so many ways how close the VNN sensibility is to that of the neoconservatives. It is quite striking in fact how similarly the world view of a Linder and of a Kristol really are - except when you realize that Linder of course was originaly an American Spectator writer - who basically imbibed and regurgitated the neocon sense of humour for a decade.

You seem to have absorbed a lot from him.

weisbrot

2003-11-12 23:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Let them laugh at the organ-grinders all they want - so long as they remember the shotguns in mid-chuckle.

Good point. An appreciation of fine entertainment would be difficult if one was gurgling face down in a steaming bowl of zuppa lombarda.

I can hardly believe you said that! While we occasionally see the 'dumb hillbilly' stereotype these days, it's becoming less prevalent....but we have been drowning in the normalization of "catamites and sodomites" nonstop for the past two decades, and the battering ram demolishing traditional sexual mores in the West - besides 'we are born queer' - has been the worldwide enabling & encouraging of agenda-driven brunser 'historians' whose sole mission is to 'prove' that homosexuality is not only normal & natural but a necessary component of all great civilizations throughout history....and this sort of rear-entry revisionism (and if warping ancient social customs out of all accurate context isn't 'revisionist history',what is?) has been a vital component in the feminist movement as well (let alone all the feminist interpretation of world history courses now included in university curricula- often mandatory courses!). [I]Control the past and you control the future[/I].[/QUOTE]

Less prevalent? I can hardly believe you said that. Oh, wait...{!}

While the elite Ivy League circles might be susceptible to the argument that what was good for the Greco-Roman rump rangers ought to be good for them, I have my doubts that the average NFL fan would know what the hell these historians are talking about. Any attempt by Fudgepacker Inc. to go down that populist route would meet with failure, although your comments on agenda-driven historians are well-taken.

Suzy Sixpack isn't going to treat Garth and Brad next door with more civility because Seymour Lipshitz wrote a paper on the sexual peccadilloes of the Roman Empire. I think the real agenda here is to keep attention off the fact that the collapse of the Empire was largely due to the importation of foreign "guest workers" (who were interestingly enough the source and target of all that catamiting and sodomizing) and the attendant mixing, mingling, and oh-so-multiwondermous assimilation that followed. When
Western Civ classes were still legally taught, most folks absorbed the fact that the perversion and decadence of the Empire was a large part of what brought it down, and I think that perception still holds out there in the DeliveranceLand viewed/created by Hollyvitz and NYC elites.

rear-entry revisionism

Duly nominated as Quote of the Year. I recommend this term be applied to all situations of fudgepack distortions, including the benefits of homo adoption, saintly gay depictions and misattributed church scandals.

il ragno

2003-11-13 00:09 | User Profile

I'm lost here,Okie. I live in New York presently...you'd think I'd have a storehouse of 'hillbilly jokes' to tell, replenished weekly....but I haven't heard one up here in years.

On the other hand, my five years in the Deep South were marked by hearing countless Polish jokes with Oklahoma and/or Arkansas replacing "Poland" in the punchline. Go figure, huh?

I think what you fail to fully grasp is how many working-class Noo Yawkuhs head out of town on either business or vacations who immediately fall in love with the physical beauty, quality of life and - above all - blessed sanity that can only be found in the Real America.

But then, people like yourself absolutely refuse to acknowledge that anyone but Alan Dershowitz's extended family resides in northern cities in the first place.

PS: way to go, working Alex Linder into yet [I]another [/I] context he doesn't remotely fit! After all, he was born in, and resides in, Missouri....that's like two exits past the Bronx, isn't it?

Roy Batty

2003-11-13 04:03 | User Profile

The homosexual "situation" in ancient Greece, Rome, etc. has always seemed to be a type of double edged sword swung by jewish academics. On the one side, we're (whitey) supposed to be struck by the 'tolerance', the 'open mindedness' of these wise ancients. Sure. The other side - look how degenerate your ancestors were, white man. Now, we won't say it, but we'll imply it by mentioning the homosexual activities of the toga crowd.

I'd have to agree that the demonization of Southern whites is the result of half a century of the one eyed jew constantly firing off these sentiments in the first place. But the zhids in general have villified small town whites no matter what part of the US they are from. Small towns, and the American South, embody much of what the yidsters despise in whites. Keep that in mind.

The situation in L.A. is much the same as what IR offered about NYC - don't hear many hillbilly or Southern jokes, if at all. Only on the televitz. Do hear a lot of bean dog and boolie jokes, with a fair number of yahoodie jokes thrown in. That's because whites out here have to deal with these monsters. Now, it's for sure that the jokes flow at strictly jewish get togethers, or gatherings of the white 'elite' and their jew friends, but there doesn't seem to be any animosity regarding the South amongst the 'regular people'. Despite the jews working so hard to manufacture it. I guess being worried about thieving mestizos and bongo lippers doesn't give one the time to worry about a non-problem.