← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · triskelion

Leaving Original Dissent

Thread ID: 11052 | Posts: 60 | Started: 2003-11-13

triskelion [OP]

2003-11-13 02:31 | User Profile

Leaving Original Dissent First, I have some good news although perhaps the paleo-cons won't think so, that good news is that my re-election bid to city council was successful. Also good is that my sister, whose views are like mine, won an election yesterday as well on the mainland and became a mayor (I think that's the term Americans use) in which she ran as a racialist in a town that has had major problems recently with aliens.

Also, my first book that has been professionally translated into English is now available and all but a few copies have been spoken for already. If anyone wants one they best write me quickly.

Now on to the main matter of leaving O.D. and why. I'll do so in part by addressing a few posts which have been made followed by a short statement. After which I don't intend to post here again.

Originally Posted by 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.

Okie: "Reminds me of another famous quote -

Quote: War is a great clarifier. It forces people to take sides. The paleo-conservatives 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. We Now Turn Our Backs on Them." David Frum: Unpatriotic Conservatives -A War On America

Okie: "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."

V.O.: As I assumed he would, Okie took the opportunity to lie and insult me by claiming my ideology is jew inspired. I can't say I'm surprised he choose a neo-con to do so as he has frequently posted neo-con and establishmentarian pablum to bolster his notion that any form of racialism = Hitler a la Hollywood while ignoring and misrepresenting everything I have presented proving the contrary. Also, expected was his decision to again describe me as a "neo-nazi" which is the choice term of Occidental haters everywhere for those that fundamentally reject multi-racialism. The same is true of is his decision to persist in pretending that I call for mimicry of the NSDAP regime when I have stated numerous times that I reject such a model and that I have offered a very different conception of a folkish society. Also expected is the simplistic and false notion that for a racialist to point out the obvious reality that the paleo-con movement has been an unmitigated failure and the reasons why is substantially the same as the neo-con rejection of paleo-con thinking while both ignoring that both differ dramatically in their reasons and methods used for doing so. That such fallacious thinking is no different then a neo-con concluding that by rejecting his dogma a paleo-con is substantively no different then an Anarchist, Maoist, Libertarian or "neo-nazi" is a truth that will alluded him as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow. Given that he views racialism as jew inspired and substantially and simultaneously inspired by libertarianism & neo-conservatism I suspect such flummery is inevitable.

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." 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."

V.O.: The comment above came in response to Okie claiming that the Paleos have enjoyed great (but unspecified) judicial successes against the left. The reason he chose not to specify those successes is for the simple reality that American liberty has been in steady decline since the days of Wilson with the rot advancing greatly since the FDR era and accelerating ever faster under Bush as the Ashcroft thread shows with stunning clarity. Given Okie's own admission that paleos are a fringe movement combined with the reality that paleos have no parties worth mentioning nor any noticeable influence within the GOP nor an electoral strong hold anywhere the notion that paleos have some how impacted recent judicial history is laughable. The notion that paleos have or can offer something valuable to white Americans is something easily dismissed when I pointed out the errors in Okie's claim that the Buchananites have done a better job resisting jewry then those I support: "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 at a cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives and countless billions of dollars. 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, Lega Nord, Front National or the Dansk Folkeparti. While nationalists in Europa lack "conservative" publications like TAC which write glowing defenses of Zionism and your civil rights which the paleos have done such a wonderful job defending these past 60 years you'll have no trouble I'm sure 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."

Texas Dissident: 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: Originally Posted by 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." T.D.: "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."

V.O.: To think it possible to retain an 18th century legal doctrine when the society that created it is long gone and the demographics of the third world are rising are indications of a shallow and internally inconsistent doctrine which is really nothing more then simple nostalgia. I won't bothering pointing out yet again that the decline of the old republic had much to do with the nature of capitalism, atomistic individualism, technological change and elite degeneration which made the jewish take over of your socializing institutions and multi-racialism dominant in American life. I won't bother because that would mean looking to "elitist and obscure" theorists from Europa as well as questioning some fundamental tenets of mainstream paleo thinking and those are two things paleos refuse to do. Also out of the question is noting that they never have and are not succeeding in electoral or public policy spheres at any level inspite of their relatively greater liberty while a great many European nationalist and populist parties are.

I also am compelled to point out that the ACLU is a leftist institution that has frequently seen fit to ignore legalistic niceties when it comes to people like Zundel, Chester Doles or Christine Greenwood as does Amnesty International. If paleo-cons look to such people to defend their rights they richly deserve to lose them.

I note that TD seems to think racialism = National Socialism = Third Reich = totalitarianism while having no knowledge of any of those things or how they relate to each other. Trying to convey that point seems fruitless as TD has shown no more interest in considering what racialists of various sorts believe and why they do then does Okie. Clearly, no party I have ever supported is totalitarian but the outcome of avoiding and/or condemning racialism as the paleos do is a brown post-America in which the vestiges of classical American Republicanism will be non-existent and totalitarianism a real possibility.
MST Quote:

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.

T.D.: "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."

V.O.: The term paleo-conservatism is perhaps 15 years old but Russell Kirk's writings are certainly paleo and they've been about for several decades and I think he makes a great case for the continuity of conservative thought going back to Burke. I've known many paleos who speak in glowing terms about the Thurman and Wallace campaigns as reflecting their ideas with good rationales for thinking so demonstrating clearly that paleo-conservatism is far older then 15 years. White supremacy/ nativism (rather then revolutionary racialism) has existed in the states since the reconstruction era, often in militant forms, and those notions are still very common among racists in the states today. Racialism really doesn't exist in the states and it doesn't look like it ever will. The costume fetish set, the Linderites and the more sensible NA version of revolutionary white supremacy certainly have nothing in common with the paleo-cons. However, old fashioned nativism/white supremacy is still very dominant among racist American whites (including a large fraction of VNN readers) and they hold views that are basically the same as paleos as both have nostalgic desires for returning to a halcion era, protectionism and 18th century style constitutionalism. The difference is that the supremacist/nativist types note that such a vision requires the expulsion or destruction of racial aliens in the states while the paleos think that reducing immigration and increasing assimilation will some allow them to avoid explicit racialism and return to the glories of the bygone republic. I've pointed out in a very detailed manner the numerous flaws with such notions to zero effect or reasoned objection from American paleos & nativist types so I'll not bother doing so again here.

MST Quote:

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.

T.D.: "Two possibilities 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."

V.O.: If #2 was a plausible answer the paleos would be able to point to some successes they have had at reversing the massive gains of the left during the past 60 years or so to balance against their failures. They can't so the verdict is in and the paleos will simply pretend it's not and keep doing the same thing they always done with abysmal results. Instead, the truth is that #1 is best explanation. That such an view is contrary to reality is easy enough to see because they don't even attempt to refute the position that jewry holds disproportionate control over American socializing institutions let alone realize the consequences of that control. Worse, almost all of them refuse to even discuss the matter. In fact, most paleos (especially the neo-confederates and excepting Dr. Francis and the basically inactive CofCC) make regular condemnations of "racism", "hate", and "anti-Semitism" while refusing to fundamentally reject multi-racialism. They prefer the fantasy that if immigration is sizably reduced, the anti-culture reigned in (although they don't have any idea how to do that) somehow assimilation will happen and the Ã¢â¬Ë50s or some other golden era will make a come back.

MST Quote:

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.

T.D.: "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."

V.O.: Neither old fashioned nativism/white supremacy nor paleo-conservatism is new. Both share far more in common then either wishes to admit and both have been utter failures at reversing the destruction of you country within living memory. Of course the reality that you can't have a brown America (which is exactly what you'll have in 50 years even if immigration was drastically reduced) and a constitutional, Christian republic as was known to your great grand fathers is something that the paleos absolutely refuse to recognize let alone understand the implications of that recognition. Again we come back the question of why has America decayed so far, so quickly with so minimal resistance and what aspects of the old order allowed the rise of jewry. I felt that I addressed those questions in a plausible fashion getting nothing but scorn and abuse from Okie and a total lack of recognition/consideration from TD and the other paleos. Clearly, repeating past failures is preferable to critical thinking as was seen by Okie's comment that just because populism has never worked doesn't mean it never will while ignoring my critique of that approach.

MST Quote:

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

T.D.: "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"

V.O.: An excellent example of the paleo desire to falsely portray racialism as nothing more then what's pushed by the Linderites. This is done so as to create a strawman made to be knocked down while avoiding the discomfort of critically looking at what's wrong with paleo-con doctrine or even acknowledging what racialists and the better populists have achieved in several European nations.

MST Quote:

Neo's and main streamers 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.

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, exemplified by an effort to maintain free exchange of ideas here on this board, only to denigrate them in return. Having bent over backwards to accommodate 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.

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."

V.O.: Yes you do have it all wrong and I'll tell you exactly why although I can't imagine you'll give anything I say honest consideration as you have yet to do so. To start off, I've mentioned that racists of various descriptions have long supported paleos that have run populist styled campaigns like Buchanan because most racists in America (even many VNN readers) are and have always been nativists that agree with paleos on pretty much everything save a fundamental rejection of multi-racialism. They have poured money, time and energy into those efforts for years inspite of never being endorsed or even recognized by any paleo publication, celebrity or foundation. After watching Buchanan betray the paleos, condemn racialism, endorse a moderated form of multi-racialism and hear denunciations of "racism" from neo-confederates and watered down societal poison from mainline paleo magazines a large chunk of American racist opinion has embraced the Linderites and the costume fetish crowd. They have done so because those groups/people are sincere, passionate and radical which appeals to racist outrage, disgust and anger. Such people overlook the massive flaws of the Linderites because they realize that demographics determine the fate of nations and that the paleo cons (with the exception of Dr. Francis and the basically ineffectual CofCC) refuse to embrace racial separatism and hold in disdain anyone that does.

As to the exchange between Okie and myself it's pretty clear that Okie went to lengths to start a flame war by being insulting and lying about me as well as well as using fallacious debate methods suited to the leftist scum that troll here from time to time rather then a conservative. TD it seems is as willfully ignorant of nationalist thought as is Okie with claims that I (and seemly all racialists and racists) are totalitarian reverting back to the baseless notion that racialists = National Socialism = Third Reich = totalitarianism.

TD's comments above indicate he doesn't know anything about racialism in general or my views and doesn't want to. If it were other wise he would have noted my objections to broad sweeping state control and the centralization of power by any segment of society. If it were other wise he could have noted that I and other NR proponents have given plenty of articles, URLs, and references that soundly refute such contentions. In a practical sense, I am like most European racialists in that I actively support a very divergent range of groups and individuals. To note that however would require paleos like TD to have a familiarity, which they lack, with the positions of those whom they disagree .

I have yet to hear a single comment by an American paleo here that was critical of the ideology he holds or extend any recognition of value to any sort for any modern racialist or European populist party save Okie's moderate interest in the German CR school. In contrast, I have often stated that I am influenced by Catholic social doctrine, the Nordic Imperium School, the ENR, radical monarchism as well as holding Americans like Calhoun and Hiram Fischer and federalism in high regard making me far from the doctrinaire ideologue that TD and Okie dishonestly claim I am. On the other hand, the total unwillingness to accept any criticism of mainstream paleo theory or performance while giving zero credence to any racialist organization or creed does speak to a dogmatic inflexibility. That dogmatism makes a fruitful exchange of ideas impossible when combined with the adamant refusal to consider the possibility that European racialists and populist parties have done far better then the paleos in electoral and public policy terms inspite of massive state oppression and leftist violence.

TD and Okie both make a big deal about me using American forums to advance my agenda yet fail to note that I do so out of concern for Occidental Americans whom I believe deserve something more then what domestic paleos and racists have done. As a result, I have offered not just critique but a detailed alternative. To me, the free exchange of ideas involves doing just that while verbal abuse from Okie and less grating yet still purposeful mischaracterization of my views by TD prevents such.

Clearly, honest examinations of the foundationalisms of paleo theory and public performance is something that this forum can't handle. That is clearly seen by TD's comment: "continuous refusal to grant even the smallest concession that Dr. Francis' work has been an asset to our greater cause here in the States". That portray is simply wrong as I have stated several times that his columns serve a very useful function. In any case, I'll no longer trouble the delicate sensibilities of American paleo-cons skipping blissful along the treadmill to nowhere by pointing out glaring problems with their foundationalisms and why they've never gone anywhere here any longer as to do so is clearly seen by TD and Okie as a ethical short coming on my part.

Interestingly, TD has had nothing but praise for the neo-con quoting Okie while holding the baseless opinion that I'm a totalitarian. Yet interestingly, his compatriot Okie thinks I'm a philo-Semite/neo-con/libertarian as seen in this amazing quote: "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 I mentioned earlier. 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. Certainly among the free market devotees of Action FranÃÂ§aise one will note they would never support syndicalists and National Socialists like Daudet, Sorrel or 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 that 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 .

I found the following quote quite amazing:

Texas DissidentDon't blame this on hymn-singers, IR. Thirty-four years of livin' and I've yet to ever meet a church-goin' Christian that had anything good to say about the ADL. Even amongst your agnostic, run of the mill Pubbie, that's a bridge too far.

V.O.: Having lived in the different portions of states, including the deep South, for several years I don't think TD could possibly be serious. I attended all sorts Christian Churches while there and noted that some had Israeli flags in the nave, that praises for multi-racialism were uniform and a great many Christians were ardent Zionists that support the ADL or anyone else supports Zionism. One doesn't even need to enter a few dozen American churches to note that hard core Zionist Christians have TV shows with millions of viewers pumping out ADL style propaganda with mind numbing regularity. One could also note that President Bush is both a church goer and an ardent Zionist as seen by the photo of him saluting the Israeli flag while wearing a yarmulka or listening to the man. That TD has never meet an ADL supporter and church goer sounds about as believable as a Sicilian building contractor say that the mafia doesn't exist any more.

Okie: Nihilism 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 incorrigibly 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.

V.O.: Outside this forum's Neo-Nietzsche I have never known anyone that was partial to Nietzsche's philosophy and I have no reason to think that rightists of any sort are inspired by him in any major sense and I've yet to read a single racialist praise Nihilism although the American costume fetish set are often unconsciously Nihilistic. Instead, I note that Okie is purposefully lying about National Socialism as he is want to do from a basis of effectively zero knowledge about any of the numerous tendencies within that segment of NR thinking. I personally have no interest in Nietzsche and little interest in Spengler whom I only view as worth while when seen via Oliver's re-visitation and have said so a great many times. Perversely, Okie wishes to project on to me a pessimistic historical dialecticism I don't and have never adhered to and Nihilism as well which I have always rejected. Okie simply refuses to be honest about my views so I no longer wish to be associated with him.

As to Franco he has clearly said he's not a "nazi" or a National Socialist of any sort so it seems that Okie does not limit his purposeful distortions to just me. I have to see any indication that Franco has any interest in Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Joseph Gobineau or that he even knows who they are.

While Okie accepts no critique whatsoever of paleo thinking or public performance he never ceases to call me "doctrinaire", a "neo-nazi" or other wise guilty of being inflexible and rigid. Doing so requires ignoring and actively lying about my rather diverse range of ideological influences and my activism on behalf those I have serious reservations about. To act in such a noxious manner so stridently and for so long proves him to be someone best avoided.

As to democratic processes and my intransigent adherence to anti-parliamentarianism that Okie knowingly and falsely projects on to me inspite of my long history of electoral politics not much need be said. I have never believed that a single model of state or governance is equally valid across all times and nations as all of my books and articles indicate. Instead, I have maintained for well over a decade that the form of state and governance adopted by a nation should be that which is best suited to the preservation of that nations' Traditionalism (which I have defined else where) at a given time. The extent to which some form of parliamentarianism preserves the Nation Organic determines it's utility and justness. When the institutions of a state or form of governance fail to protect the Nation Organic and the Traditionalism that stems from it it's legitimacy is lost. What that means is that if left with a choice between authoritarianism that's likely to advance traditionalism or the destruction of the Nation Organic via democracy I'll choose authoritarianism every time. The German CR school which Okie talks about from time to time but understands very little of reached the same conclusion which is why they rejected the Weimar Republic which was nothing more then cultural Bolshevism combined with a democracy quickly sliding to political Bolshevism and national destruction. Of course, if Okie had honestly read much of what I wrote here or anywhere else he'd note that I and a very large segment of European racialist thought reject both the totalitarianism of the state and the "free market" because both subvert and oppress Traditionalism which in turn endangers the Nation Organic.

He has chosen to ignore that reality and falsely portray me and those that reject mainstream paleo-con doctrine as libertarian/nihilistic/philo-Semitic/neo-con in inspiration which is grossly insulting as well as baseless. It's hard to say why he acts in such an abusive manner but my guess is that his emotional involvement with Buchananism totally prevents him from honestly considering any other view point to the extent that he bizarrely believes Buchananism successful and the Dansk Folkeparti a failure. I've noted that those so clearly disengaged from physical reality are likely to defend their bankrupt vision by dishonestly attacking others and imagining failure as a triumph which is exactly what American paleos are most likely to do.

Conclusion, Leaving Original Dissent:

Looking to the debacle that defines the racist and paleo scenes in the states I recall the following vastly overstated quote: "What makes one's words stick in one's throat whenever one attempts to have a conversation with an American is their monumental self-righteousness. They prove with every sentence, every action, that they know absolutely nothing, yet they pretend that they are the only people who know anything. When confronted with several alternatives they do not hesitate: with energy and assurance they immediately choose the worst. And what is particularly bad is the way they continually act contrary to their own true interests." [Ernst von Salomon, "The Questionnaire", 1951]

While I reject the anti-American sentiment of that statement I am forced to admit that shades of it appear when considering TD's unwillingness to recognize that Bolshevism in the USSR was in large measure a result of American actions as Perun pointed out quite extensively. I am forced to see such similarities when I note paleos give unqualified defenses of American style populism, unqualified condemnations of the NSDAP regime while rejecting any European rightist tradition without knowing anything about it. Clearly, it is evident that American paleos can not and will not attempt honest self evaluations and deeply resent those that question their foundationalism in any form. Given that my presence is clearly resented by the paleos here and the fruitfulness of my efforts else where I have decided to no longer post at O.D.

Those that wish to stay in contact with me may do so via email, direct contact or a P.M. via this forum.

Hilaire Belloc

2003-11-13 02:53 | User Profile

Trisk, I already sent you a PM explaining much more of this, but I'm really going to miss you!

While I reject the anti-American sentiment of that statement I am forced to admit that shades of it appear when considering TD's unwillingness to recognize that Bolshevism in the USSR was in large measure a result of American actions as Perun pointed out quite extensively.

:lol: and il Rango claims that everything I type on this forum is a lie! I would also say that Tex's reply to my arguments was rather unneccessary, I don't know what Mikhail Lermontov in my signature looking like Ferris Bueller has to do with much American support for the USSR.

I am forced to see such similarities when I note paleos give unqualified defenses of American style populism, unqualified condemnations of the NSDAP regime while rejecting any European rightist tradition without knowing anything about it. Clearly, it is evident that American paleos can not and will not attempt honest self evaluations and deeply resent those that question their foundationalism in any form.

Well Trisk you're not the only one whose noticed these tendencies at this forum! Hell taking pride in your own ethnic heritage is enough to get you labelled a "traitor" in the eyes of some paleos here.

Well best of luck to you life Trisk!

Enkidu

2003-11-13 03:05 | User Profile

Hey V. O.,

Truth is, I think the time of the on-line-forum for WNs is winding down. I like OD, but I donÃ¢â¬â¢t have my heart into it. Others do, and IÃ¢â¬â¢m grateful for them.

I donÃ¢â¬â¢t have plans to visit the Fearoe Islands, but if my old memory serves, the most beautiful women in the world are in Denmark, and I do occasionally make it to Europe.

If you ever see a 58 (or so) year old American wandering about Tivoli, with a white beard and white hair half way down to his waist, that may well be me.

All the best to you and your family, Mike H.

Congratulations to you and your sister on your elections.

Enkidu

il ragno

2003-11-13 04:46 | User Profile

Trisk, I wish you nothing but success in your political (and real) life and ditto for your sister. I've noticed for some time you spinning your wheels composing long and detailed responses to Okie which I could've told you was a waste of time and bandwidth, akin to firing a cannon at a gnat. Okie's particular gimmick is to feign engaging in a dialogue - he never loses his temper or adopts a hostile tone, he simply tricks people into making detailed, impassioned (yet logical) arguments in good faith - and then making sure to include in his response ludicrous and inappropriate comments re Alex Linder, brownshirts, Nazis, etc. The thing to do is to deride and dismiss him from the outset of your comments and then be done with him. Attempting to reason with Okie is like arguing with a toy drinking bird who responds to every approach by bobbing forward and dipping his wooden beak into the same glass of water ad infinitum.

Of course I've had my set-to's with you as well but I can at least respect the fact that you walk it like you talk it. However the problem with exporting local Euro-style activism to American shores is that America is just too physically large an area, with too many squabbling ethnic/geographic factions, and we are by and large an apolitical people who more often than not truly believe the maxim that you can't fight City Hall, especially now that "local governments" have all become satellite offices of the Federal Government with a coat of faux-regional varnish slapped on them.

Of course it's not even as cut-and-dried as [I]that[/I] - there's still the two-headed beast of Media and Religion to tackle - but suffice it to say that the only true national political movement with any clout, knowhow and organizational muscle in the United States is THE JEWISH PARTY. Too many of us seem to think that what is needed is the proper, 'tasteful' approach that exercises that perfect balance of caution and denial that, once effected, makes the reality of Jewish domination simply unhappen without anyone having to crawl down into the gutter to suffer the indignity of confronting, defanging and defeating it. (I should note here that-unlike Franco - I don't necessarily believe people particularly [I]need [/I] to be alerted and educated to the nature, power and threat of organized Jewry. Americans know damn well -if subdermally - Who Runs America; they just equate The Jewish Party with "City Hall" and they believe to their shoetops that, as I said before, You Can't Fight City Hall.)

That said, I've never believed for a moment that the approaches that seem to yield results in Europe could EVER work here. There is no 'local European blood-and-soil approach' that can simultaneously deliver results in a dozen European nations. Witness the spectacular failure of any sort of pan-European unity just on this board alone, as thread after thread collapsed into fratricidal bloodlust at the mention of such an approach. Which is why the local approaches have worked better than the national (let alone [I]multi[/I]-national) approaches have any hope of doing. Well,the sheer geographic expanse of the US - and the factionalism of the various regions and ethnicities in it -is roughly the equivalent of having a handful of smaller European countries all crammed inside the same border. Politically, one size does [I]not [/I] fit all - not here,anyway.

I'm not sure what [I]will [/I] work,bbut it's pretty obvious what won't. But we are heading into interesting times, unfortunately - economic meltdown and race-war skirmishes lurk right around the corner here - so we may well find out whether or not 'worse is better', and sooner than we think. And if the answer to that is one that makes us long for the "good old days" of multiculturalism and the Nanny State....well, [I]look before you leap[/I] has certainly not been a characteristic of American life for a lo-o-ong time now.

But I'm rambling (again). Good luck to you, Trisk.

Okiereddust

2003-11-13 05:26 | User Profile

[QUOTE=perun1201]:lol: and il Rango claims that everything I type on this forum is a lie! I would also say that Tex's reply to my arguments was rather unneccessary, I don't know what Mikhail Lermontov in my signature looking like Ferris Bueller has to do with much American support for the USSR.

Well forums can be tough places. I remember one thread a fellow started where he didn't want any comments!

[quote=Triskelion]Clearly, it is evident that American paleos can not and will not attempt honest self evaluations and deeply resent those that question their foundationalism in any form.

I don't think it is just the American paleo's that "can not and will not attempt honest self evaluations and deeply resent those that question their foundationalism in any form".

Trisk, whatever he is when translated into plain english, certainly hasn't been one that welcomes questions of his foundationalism, when it becomes clear that we intend to persist in our attempt to get to the root issues.

Review our threads and see who was the most obstinate, us in our supposed refusal to admit Buchanan might be sometimes be wrong, or Trisk in being willing to admit that Buchanan or any other paleo might ever sometimes be right.

In any event, it doesn't surprise me that he is moving on from forums. Being a public elected official or other public figure you have a tendency to take disagreement and criticism much more personally, and view the acceptability of your views on internet forums as much less important than they were previously. Something of course Pat and Sam learned long ago. Let's see if his public statements as V.O. an elected official of Faroe, could withstand the same scrutiny he applies to that of Buchanan or Francis. In an open forum and debate, such as Buchanan and Francis allow commonly.

Consider that a permanently open challenge, which I suspect he anticipated in providing a pretext to avoid answering. [quote=peron1201]Well Trisk you're not the only one whose noticed these tendencies at this forum! Hell taking pride in your own ethnic heritage is enough to get you labelled a "traitor" in the eyes of some paleos here.

Well best of luck to you life Trisk![/QUOTE]

Not just paleo's. We could get back to the WWII style flame wars between you and polish noble vs. LG and FB ;)

il ragno

2003-11-13 05:31 | User Profile

[QUOTE]....it doesn't surprise me that he is moving on from forums. Being a public elected official or other public figure you have a tendency to take disagreement and criticism much more personally, and view the acceptability of your views on internet forums as much less important than they were previously...[/QUOTE]

Okie, Trisk stated "my [B]re[/B]-election bid to city council was successful"....which indicates he was posting here while [I]already [/I] holding office (or at the very least, a known political figure in his neck of the woods).

And congratulations for managing to get through an entire post without using the word "Linderite". Who'da thunk it?

Hilaire Belloc

2003-11-13 07:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Well forums can be tough places. I remember one thread a fellow started where he didn't want any comments!

Yeah well if the only thing you can counter my arguments with saying everything I write is a lie or that my avatar guy looks like Ferris Bueller; then thats just pathetic. At least the Croat negro Zvaci tried to back his insults with things that resembled facts. I know forums can be tough places.

Not just paleo's. We could get back to the WWII style flame wars between you and polish noble vs. LG and FB ;)[/QUOTE]

Well LG and FB are banned so I don't know how we could do that. Although what you propose is not a bad idea, since I always had fun with those debates and still can't stop laughing from reading the old posts from those debates. Even Tex admitted flame wars here and there add excitement to this forum.

Walter Yannis

2003-11-13 07:59 | User Profile

Congratulations, Trisk!

Why not sell the English version of your book online? I'd definitely buy a copy.

I wish you every success in the future.

Walter

Walter Yannis

2003-11-13 08:23 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Yeah well if the only thing you can counter my arguments with saying everything I write is a lie or that my avatar guy looks like Ferris Bueller[/QUOTE]

The Russian poet Mikhail Lermontov does indeed bear an uncanny resemblence to actor Matthew Broderick.

If memory serves, the Lemontov family was the Russian branch of the Scottish Lermont clan. They wound up in Russia after one of the wars Scotland lost to England - I think Bonny Prince Charlie, but I don't remember exactly.

So, maybe the Celtic looking Matthew Broderick is kin to Lermontov?

Pure speculation, of course.

Lermontov was a great, great writer - novelist and poet combined, which is rather rare.

Perhaps Broderick could play the lead in a Hollywood version of "A Hero of Our Time?"

Walter

Okiereddust

2003-11-13 08:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Okie, Trisk stated "my [B]re[/B]-election bid to city council was successful"....which indicates he was posting here while [I]already [/I] holding office (or at the very least, a known political figure in his neck of the woods).

Thanks BTW for pointing this out to me. The exact nature of his public position was still somewhat unclear to me, he had never made it very plain, for obvious reasons.

However my offer stil stands to him. People who may sympathize with views of WN's still find a strong conflict between their private views and the necessities of life as a public figure. I don't think it is much different for him than for Pat Buchanan - I am sure he adjusted the expression of his views considerably to take into account his public position.

It at times seems to me to be the height of either stupidity or disingenuousness to criticize a public figure without taking these realities into account, hence my ill-feelings toward the Buchanan-bashers. However must admit I have made the same mistake toward him, and so must offer him postforumously some slack and apologies in this regard. A number of the questions I was asking him to clarify must have been personally uncomfortable and caused him great difficulty in a way much different than for those retaining our anonymity, and I wish at times I'd backed off in some of the questions I'd asked. But it is a difficult decision actually. He may have been advancing his political career by stonewaling about in his manner, but I see difficulty in how his success will ever benefit us. In the same way he say it difficult that Buchanan's succcess would ever benefit him.

He has his agenda, and Buchananite/paleo's have ours. It is unfortunate that circumstances make it unlikely that we'll ever cooperate substantially or benefit from each other.

And congratulations for managing to get through an entire post without using the word "Linderite". Who'da thunk it?[/QUOTE]

You caught me red-handed. LOL

il ragno

2003-11-13 08:52 | User Profile

[QUOTE]The exact nature of his public position was still somewhat unclear to me, he had never made it very plain, for obvious reasons.[/QUOTE]

????

I don't know how he could have made it any plainer. He's a city councilman. His sister's the mayor. He says it in simple English in the very first paragraph.

I'm not sure of [I]where [/I] exactly, but I believe it's an island not far from Iceland.

PS: by George, Perun's icon [I]does[/I] look like Matthew Broderick! (I know, I know- "pistols at dawn" again. [I]Sheesh[/I]....)

Hilaire Belloc

2003-11-13 08:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] If memory serves, the Lemontov family was the Russian branch of the Scottish Lermont clan. They wound up in Russia after one of the wars Scotland lost to England - I think Bonny Prince Charlie, but I don't remember exactly.

Well Lermont came to Russia in the 1600's or something.

Perhaps Broderick could play the lead in a Hollywood version of "A Hero of Our Time?" [/QUOTE]

Well normally I would think that Hollywood would not make such a film, but I guess it's possible after Ralph Fiennes starring in the film adoptation of Pushkin's "Evgenni Onegin". Good film, although Onegin actually fires first in the duel scene of the novel not second as in the film. BTW, its interesting to historians of how close the duel scene in "Evgenni Onegin" is to the actual duel Pushkin would later die in several years after he wrote the novel.

Okiereddust

2003-11-13 09:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]????

I don't know how he could have made it any plainer. He's a city councilman. His sister's the mayor. He says it in simple English in the very first paragraph.

I'm not sure of [I]where [/I] exactly, but I believe it's an island not far from Iceland.

PS: by George, Perun's icon [I]does[/I] look like Matthew Broderick! (I know, I know- "pistols at dawn" again. [I]Sheesh[/I]....)[/QUOTE]

Right. He's made it clear now, but somehow I'd never fully grasped that he was already serving as a city councilman and I don't think he'd come right out and said so. A lot of things you can't come right and say so actually.

I would say more, but perhaps it might be better to move this discussion to the members only forum, not that I wish to be impolite to the two "guests" on this thread.

il ragno

2003-11-13 09:39 | User Profile

Ha! Yeah, I notice a lot of that lately: "there are 2 members and 67 guests online."

They must be [I]busing [/I] them in from the synagogue these days!

Bardamu

2003-11-13 13:05 | User Profile

So long Trisk, I enjoyed reading your posts. Can't say that I am surprised at your departure.

Good luck in the fight to save Europa.

Most sincerely, Bardamu

Faust

2003-11-13 13:58 | User Profile

triskelion,

I am very sorry that you are leaving. I have always greatly enjoyed your post. I think most of what you have said goes very well with the "Samuel Francis" type paleo-cons. The Europeans of America need to be brought into the fold of the European Right. Any true Paleo-con movement must be based on a Folk-Cultural Nationalism, or Blood and Soil.

Sertorius

2003-11-13 14:34 | User Profile

Triskelion,

Speaking for myself, this paleocon is delighted at your re-election and your sister's election. You have to do what works best in your situation, just like I have to do here, for each nation and culture requires different means to work. There is no "cookie cutter" solution.

I wish you good hunting in your cause.

Blond Knight

2003-11-13 20:33 | User Profile

Triskelion,

Congratulations to you and your sister for winning your elective offices.

I for one will be sorry to see you leave O.D. . Your posts were always of the highest caliber and hopefully an inspiration to all who may have read them.

Good luck in all your endeavors, and thank you for all you have done and continue to do for our people.

Sincerely, Blond Knight

Acorn

2003-11-13 20:44 | User Profile

Aww come on Trisk, take a vacation or something but don't leave for good!

Who said White Nationalism and freedom are inconsistant? The Founding Fathers were all good Indian fighters and the US was certainly founded on good White Nationalist principles. Before it was edited all to hell, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were very clear on the US being a White nation and intended to be so. Although I prefer a parliamentary form of government, which is harder for Jews to hijack, the USA had very good White beginnings and during all the time we were a strong nation, it's been a White nation. I think people have the wrong idea about White Nationalism, they seem to forget that the concept of individual rights, like anything beyond the rock, the spear, and the big ol' flint knife, was a White invention. It's genetically coded in.

PS don't stay away too long!

Ruffin

2003-11-13 22:24 | User Profile

I hope you'll change your mind, Trisk. Americans desperately need every bit of European perspective and infusion they can get. I think that part of their egged-on hostility comes from a perversion of the American founders' warnings about the machinations of Europe, back in the days when Europe was the tribe's base of operations.

madrussian

2003-11-13 23:12 | User Profile

triskelion,

if you quit, then the terrorists will have won!

Okiereddust

2003-11-14 00:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Personally, I'm quite saddened to see Triskelion go. Almost everything he posted was both interesting and substantive, and much of it generated worthwhile discussion.

No disagreement there. What was even sadder was the feeling I had started to get however that the parting was inevitable, that the seemingly intractable differences we had over Buchanan, Francis, and paleoism in general made a parting of the ways inevitable.

What I find rather strange is that somebody would (in part) chose to leave over a disagreement or quarrel with another member, though obviously it's V.O.'s prerogative and not mine.

Well Trisk was a unique soul, one who took our our positions quite seriously and expected to be taken seriously in return. It was quite a refreshing contrast. At least we had an opportunity to find someone that actually was willing to honestly state what he thought, in a coherent manner, and lay out a plan to be done.

Where the difficulty came was in the fact that when someone like Trisk puts so much work into drawing up a plan of action, they sometimes become impatient with those who question this or think changes are necessary. Trisk had some very strong opinions on things like Francis, paleo's, and most of all Buchanan, as well as other things, such as what he felt to be excessive criticism of the Third Reich. He also had some exacting requirements of those who would seriously take him to task with his opinions on these issues.

If one was willing to defer to his greater experience and wisdom that was fine, but considering the importance these things really represented, I could not in good conscience do so. Buchanan, Buchananism, Francis and paleoism is of enormous imprtance to those of us who have spent so much time defending these things in hostile neocon forums like Free Republic.

For those who have not picked it up, the attack on Buchanan is really an an attack on such people, i.e. people like us. I cannot accept such from the likes of Linder, and thus must write the man off. Which is why I pressed so hard to find a substantive and qualitative difference in Trisk's position on Buchanan.

Trisk gets mad when I say so, but I really could not find any such difference regarding Buchanan and Buchananism. For whatever reason, his stance on Buchanan seems every bit as harsh and dismissisive as that of Linder.

For those of who voted for Buchanan, worked for his parties and spent countless hours on Free Republic defending Buchananism from his enemies, to be told all this activity wa the work of fools who had been duped by a man who really was an enemy of everything WN stod for was a bit much.

Trisk long complained his most important posts and suggestions didn't get any attention. By and large it seems to me really, besides myself and Tex, they still didn't get much attention, most people were content just to sit on the sidelines. Sometimes you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.> The other factors involved make sense (it's heartening to see somebody cut out cyberpolitics to make time for real-world politics, after all)

Maybe. I remain to be convinced exactly how getting elected to a councilman's seat in a small town on a small island in the middle of the atlantic, which as a hole is a tiny part of a country Denmark, which is a tiny fraction of the size of the U.S., marks a positive affirmation of the principle that Trisks methods are successful and Buchanan's methods are a failure.

Buchanan I'm sure could also get elected to the town council of any number of small towns in America. I doubt though the WN's would similarly congratulate him on such efforts.

il ragno

2003-11-14 03:50 | User Profile

[QUOTE]For those who have not picked it up, the attack on Buchanan is really an an attack on such people, i.e. people like us. [/QUOTE]

As Tonto told the Lone Ranger, "What you mean [I]us[/I], white man?" There are more people here who draw succor and strength from Linder than Buchanan. They both know who's who and what's what, but only one of them will state it plainly. One praises, cites and promotes Kevin Macdonald- the other hires out John Derbyshire to damn him with faint praise,so aghast is he at getting his own hands ideologically dirty.

And here's the joke of it: [I]both [/I] are equally considered to be 'anti-Semitic hate merchants' by Jewish media and the bobblehead-America they 'serve'. Over 20 years ago, I listened to a Jewish roundtable radio discussion where one particularly virulent shrew kept insisting that [I]when you make concessions to your enemies and meet them halfway they will kill you just as dead[/I]....but only have to travel [I]half [/I] as far to do it. And whatever Pat Buchanan once represented to white dissident America, by now he best serves as a warning of what happens when you confuse America's vital interests with your own continued nightly appearances on television.

[QUOTE]For whatever reason, his stance on Buchanan seems every bit as harsh and dismissisive as that of Linder.[/QUOTE]

Why should anyone at all be held to [I]your [/I] standard of myopic hero-worship? Since Pat first began squawking about the Amen Corner - and then began his Long Retreat from his early rhetoric- Jewish power has seemingly quadrupled into a near-complete stranglehold inthe West. Since Alex Linder began his "juvenile, insignificant" website [I]saying [/I] what most of us had been canine-trained into being afraid to [I]think[/I] too loudly, the dread specter of "anti-Semitism" has been spreading like a wildcat oil fire worldwide as common ordinary people, emboldened by [I]his [/I] boldness, begin to articulate what heretofore had been verboten under penalty of however many laws they could draft as fast as they could draft them. And thank GOD for that.

You feel Linder is too declasse, too irreverent to your holy icons, too unapologetically confrontational? [I]Too bad[/I]. If we sat around waiting for [I]Pat [/I] to deliver us from Zion, we'll end up in nursing homes watching TV Land reruns of CROSSFIRE at 3am on the Netanyahu Broadcasting System.

Bardamu

2003-11-14 04:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]

Buchanan I'm sure could also get elected to the town council of any number of small towns in America. I doubt though the WN's would similarly congratulate him on such efforts.[/QUOTE]

You are a divisive s.o.b.

The only reason your bitch (which is what you are) had any effect on Trist, I would imagine, is because TD backed it up.

Okiereddust

2003-11-14 05:00 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Bardamu]You are a divisive s.o.b.

I am not a s.o.b. ;)

The only reason your bitch (which is what you are) had any effect on Trist, I would imagine, is because TD backed it up.[/QUOTE]

Com'mon. Am one or am the son of one?

But seriously, I'm glad Trisk has achieved electoral power. With any luck, WN's may soon achieve the electoral success of libertarians and even in the USA elect a dogcatcher (as the anti-libertarian jibe goes).

How can being a major Presidential contender 3 elections running, with all the platform that and of being a major TV commentator, compare with that?

We may have lost the world, but shute, we can always retreat, for a time at least, to some tiny islands in the North Atlantic.

il ragno

2003-11-14 05:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE]How can being a major Presidential contender 3 elections running....[/QUOTE]

But that's just it, you see. Despite having a high-profile, old-money connections and a thorough insider's knowledge of How The Game Is Played, Buchanan was [I]never[/I] a 'major contender'. He was a fringe player whose numbers plummeted with every run. He never even approached Perot's numbers... nor John Anderson's! If it wasn't for the Jews needing a patsy to hold Florida hostage until they got their assurances from Team Dubya that it would be [I]Israel uber alles and full speed ahead[/I] he wouldn't have even made the graph needle stir this last time around.

Trisk ran for something [B]and won[/B], regardless of how minor the office may appear to you - and he did it without having to hug a darkie running mate or quietly sit on his stated beliefs to do so.

And may I add that his sister ran [B]and won [/B] as well, rather than play the hamfisted Campaign Doyenne in a series of vanity runs more notable for their spectacular failures than anything else.

Okiereddust

2003-11-14 08:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]But that's just it, you see. Despite having a high-profile, old-money connections and a thorough insider's knowledge of How The Game Is Played, Buchanan was [I]never[/I] a 'major contender'. He was a fringe player whose numbers plummeted with every run. He never even approached Perot's numbers... nor John Anderson's!

Your historical recollection needle is grossly skewed. Buchanan of course was the leading alternative contender for GOP nomination in both 92 and 96 whose poll preferences among the GOP approached 40% at one time if I recall.

The reason his poll numbers dropped as he ran was of course the vicuous attacks on him as an extremist and anti-semite by the mainstream media.

A clever WN opposition could have turned this vicous attack to their benefit. Instead the predominant leadership element just chose to whine about him not being hardline enough.

Actions at best characteristic of losers. But I suspect ther is something more sinister behind these classic "divide and disunify" tactics.

If it wasn't for the Jews needing a patsy to hold Florida hostage until they got their assurances from Team Dubya that it would be [I]Israel uber alles and full speed ahead[/I] he wouldn't have even made the graph needle stir this last time around.

Typical hyperbolic, off-topic speculation. Whatever.

Trisk ran for something [B]and won[/B], regardless of how minor the office may appear to you - and he did it without having to hug a darkie running mate or quietly sit on his stated beliefs to do so.

Yes Virginia, it is excedingly minor. And beg your pardon, but he also admitted, in so many words, to also be "sitting on his stated beliefs" in a sense, re, saying he talks differently when running for office than when doing activist work elsewhere.

And may I add that his sister ran [B]and won [/B] as well, rather than play the hamfisted Campaign Doyenne in a series of vanity runs more notable for their spectacular failures than anything else.[/QUOTE] Ah contraire, his so far nameless sister, running for a so far nameless office in a nameless place, which he is of course reluctant to openly divulge, has for all this caution not come close to Buchanan's great success in 92 and 96 (winning a number of Republican primaries).

It is quite amusing to hear the number of anonymous critics of Buchanan, who dare not even show their faces in public and probably couldn't get their own dog to agree with them, posture as if Buchanan is a great failure because he did not listen to them.

It is in my opinion a very unhealthy case of internet incited self infatuation and grandiosity, posturing as if any of their endless Linderite blather would ever mean a thing if there weren't mainstream figures like Buchanan and other to bring at least of few of these ideas occasionally to the general public, and show they aren't merely the product of the anonymous lunatics most people assume internet neo-nazi's to be, but actually are defensible and have reasonable validity.

il ragno

2003-11-14 09:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Actions at best characteristic of losers. [/QUOTE]

You oughta know, being the Buchanan groupie. One could argue Pat's most resounding failure was '92, a year so ripe for the taking that Perot grabbed a mind-boggling 19% of the popular vote (the only [I]alternative contender [/I] of real note in the past decade).

[QUOTE]It is quite amusing to hear the number of anonymous critics of Buchanan, who dare not even show their faces in public and probably couldn't get their own dog to agree with them, posture as if Buchanan is a great failure because he did not listen to them.[/QUOTE]

But not as amusing as the barking-poodle-squawk of anonymous Buchanan loyalists, who posture as if a FOURTH run would surely do the trick. And it might: I've always wondered if a candidate could simultaneously scam matching funds [I]and[/I] capture less than 1% of the popular vote. That [I]would [/I] be quite a trick.

[QUOTE]Typical hyperbolic, off-topic speculation. [/QUOTE]

Hard to get further off-topic than to begin by huffing and puffing things like "major contender" and quickly detour into whining 'explanations' of why this "major contender" continued to fall further and further from the prize he sought,until this last run of his - where he was barely breathing until he was shaken awake to be brandished as the 'reason' for the Florida debacle.

Perhaps if he had bothered to run for - and win - a relatively-insignificant office at some point (say, city council on some tiny island somewhere), he might actually have accrued enough practical political experience to run a credible campaign for President (the [I]third [/I] time around, at least). But, no....he had to start at the [B]top[/B]. In the end, even [I]his own admirers [/I] were sighing as they pulled the Bush/Cheney lever.

Turns out it's not just the 'anonymous lunatics' who are delusional.

Bardamu

2003-11-14 14:04 | User Profile

Buchanan, Buchanan, Buchanan, Jezzus, talk about thumping a dead horse.

xmetalhead

2003-11-14 14:44 | User Profile

Trisk, I've enjoyed reading your posts on OD. God Bless in your future endeavors.

Okiereddust

2003-11-14 17:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Bardamu]Buchanan, Buchanan, Buchanan, Jezzus, talk about thumping a dead horse.[/QUOTE]You're the guys that can't stop beating it.

W.R.I.T.O.S

2003-11-14 23:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Well forums can be tough places. I remember one thread a fellow started where he didn't want any comments!

I don't think it is just the American paleo's that "can not and will not attempt honest self evaluations and deeply resent those that question their foundationalism in any form".

Consider that a permanently open challenge, which I suspect he anticipated in providing a pretext to avoid answering.

Not just paleo's. We could get back to the WWII style flame wars between you and polish noble vs. LG and FB ;)[/QUOTE] Why should triskelion(or you) question something that's working? Your brand of American patriotic populist conservatism has been a total and utter failure. Triskelion's politics are succeeding. That's the difference. Triskelion can go back to his world and succeed if everyone else on this forum drops dead. What can you do? Keep failing with Buchanan? Have fun.

W.R.I.T.O.S

2003-11-14 23:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I am not a s.o.b. ;)

Com'mon. Am one or am the son of one?

How can being a major Presidential contender 3 elections running, with all the platform that and of being a major TV commentator, compare with that?

We may have lost the world, but shute, we can always retreat, for a time at least, to some tiny islands in the North Atlantic.[/QUOTE]

Populist nationalists in denmark are now one of the largest political forces in the country and have been able to effect major policy changes. The derisory results Buchanan got in the 2000 election should be a source of embarassment.

And electing a dog catcher would be a major victory for you and Pat. You laughing at triskelion's successes is like a man with no arms or legs laughing at a man with only nine toes.

Smedley Butler

2003-11-15 03:02 | User Profile

After Dec. 1999 how could any one support puke0cannon.. I gave him the largest cash donation I ever gave polictical hack in my life several hundred! I did ask for it back after the Mazola Foster choice he made, and the Flanni thing was sinkening too, most of U.S who supported him a gave him money, and were desperate for a last chance for peaceful change in the District of Criminals.. I will Not reply to any one defending Puke0. That is a Zero, not a O. He and that piece flag crap, con-artist out Texas got Clitooon elected in the first place and not only destroyed any chace of for a third party, but have truly destroyed the U.S. and now we have full blown despotism figuring out how to put it to U.S.

Faust

2003-11-15 03:30 | User Profile

Smedley Butler,

Okiereddust

2003-11-15 06:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Faust]Smedley Butler,

Sadly your Right! Pat run as far to the Left as he could in 2000. He did a pruge of Right-Wing form the Reform Party and went PC. It was sickening! I think he would done better had he gone Hard Right.[/QUOTE] He still did much better than any other right/third party candidate had ever done.

The simple fact was he was the best alternative there was, he made the choices the rightists wanted him to make (in working with Perot, and publishing A Republic Not an Empire etc.), and was the only possible hope of uniting the various factions of the nationalist right into some form where they do something other than just fight each other.

Whose going to take his place? Can you imagine people like Strom, Linder, or even (God forbid) White running for such an office? LOL And if they did, their opponents within the WN movement would say worse things about them than they did about Buchanan.

OlafLynckner

2003-11-15 07:29 | User Profile

I seem to have showed up too late as my comrade Triskelion has already left here.

Some of the things talked about here I canÃ¢â¬â¢t get into as I have not the experience with Americans that VO has and I am not so familiar with some of the people here. I do on the other hand know VO very well and have from the school days we spent together in England when my father worked for Atlantic Airlines. So I think I can comment about what results he has in the real world and why they matter.

First, the Danish PeopleÃ¢â¬â¢s Party a very good party that is the third largest party in Denmark with 12% of the vote. It is part of the current ruling coalition and has done a lot to change government policy and greatly reduce multi-racialism in 2 years. What I have read says the DPP is to the Ã¢â¬ÅrightÃ¢â¬Â of any party in the USA that has any chance of electing anyone so they deserve some credit even if they are far from perfect. The same is true for many other parties mentioned by Triskelion, some better and more successful then the DPP, and it should be said he has worked with most the groups he speaks of often in a major way. As best I can tell, no such party has ever existed in the states that has ever gotten close to doing what those parties do.

Being elected to anything is not easy, if you think it is try it, so donÃ¢â¬â¢t pretend it is nothing to get elected to a city council. VO has been elected twice to the third largest city in his country and he did it without "sitting on his stated beliefs" has always said exactly what he thinks in public and has suffered horribly for doing that and he will do so no matter what the cost in the future. Obviously, he does not talk of race in the Faroes because everybody there is Nordic and no jews can be found so you say he is a coward but facts are that talking about race their makes as much sense as talking about vampires or dragons as such things are not any sort of issue there. The leftist JavnaÃÂ°arflokkurin (Social Democrats) made a big deal out of his racial views but he won any way because some their like what he stands for in economics and independence movement.

His sister won a mayor race in a good sized city in Denmark, with his help, and before that served in city government in a very large city and she is much like VO as to beliefs and what she says. If you did not know, Triskelion was also elected to a big city council on as he says Ã¢â¬Åthe mainlandÃ¢â¬Â 8 years ago on a local nationalist list that pushed race and his economics. He did not run again there because he was asked by the Fremskridtspartiet to run for a Folketing seat and while he did not win he did finish 3 out of 11 which I think was great as the media hated him. He made a second attempt and was projected to win until he went to trial for helping organize a protest against foreigners gang raping girls which ended his run without a win but still he did very well.

I know as fact that he helped run election efforts for lots of people in several countries trying to win local seats (I was one) with good results some times. That effort alone is very important. He has started a school in the isles and is working to get one going in Denmark with the help of two groups he is in. He also has worked on same sort of thing somewhere in the East but I donÃ¢â¬â¢t know how itÃ¢â¬â¢s going.

He helps raise support for Radio Maryja and Radio Oasis which reach very large numbers each day and have no American counterparts. He also has some businesses which he uses to support his causes.

What is true is that VO has given his all for his beliefs and has gotten some very good results. Some complain he is not radical enough but those people donÃ¢â¬â¢t do anything themself. The parties he works in a very active way are very successful and some projects he supports are to make them into better parties still.

I think it is very wrong to mis-present his ideology and claim his accomplishments are nothing. If someone else has done the same things with his resources for national revolution that is great but if not at least one should not lie about him and make it seem like he does nothing that matters.

Buchanan is someone I donÃ¢â¬â¢t know much of yet it is clear he does not speak honestly of jews or race and even ran with a black woman and was helped by a black communist. He ran for president which is something he could never have won and after those efforts he had nothing to show for it. If you want to win a major position it seems hard to imagine that you can do it without having a real party and building up local support for many years. I know that because Buchanan got about 1% of the vote last time and was beaten by Nader when Buchanan has a TV show, a big fortune and lots of Ã¢â¬Åconnections within the systemÃ¢â¬Â. That seems like lots of resources for poor results and nothing that helps anyone now. If you couldnÃ¢â¬â¢t do well with what he had best work for something less powerful that can built upon. I learned a lot from Triskelion and he learned a lot from people that were smarter and more experienced then he was so he should be accepted for what he has done rather then trashed by people that have not done as much.

il ragno

2003-11-15 07:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE]He still did much better than any other right/third party candidate had ever done.[/QUOTE]

Not even remotely true. It's Perot, like it or not.

Okiereddust

2003-11-15 08:23 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Not even remotely true. It's Perot, like it or not.[/QUOTE]So Perot's your political guiding star now as a rightist? You guys, who get apoplectic when Buchanan picks someone like Foster? LOL. If Perot had picked someone like Foster for a running mate it would have seemed like an improvement

Perot had some interesting and occasionally good positions, but overall he made dubbya and McCain look like rightists.

Okiereddust

2003-11-15 09:19 | User Profile

[QUOTE=OlafLynckner]I seem to have showed up too late as my comrade Triskelion has already left here.

Some of the things talked about here I canÃ¢â¬â¢t get into as I have not the experience with Americans that VO has and I am not so familiar with some of the people here.............

I learned a lot from Triskelion and he learned a lot from people that were smarter and more experienced then he was so he should be accepted for what he has done rather then trashed by people that have not done as much.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for joining us Olaf, and I hope we can get into a good discussion and resolve some of the things about what unfortunately become an irresolvable bone of contention with me for Trisk, that of the comparative success of Buchanan/paleoism vs. Trisk and whatever exactly it was he called himself (categorizing him became another one of those difficulties).

It might have been better if we had seen you before on this thread. Critiqueing a person's political success directly is sort of uncomfortable position to be in, although I felt it was unavoidable since he'd made his own involvement with the People's Party such a big issue. I know you're a supporter too, like I have voted for Buchanan in the past, but I don't think that's really by itself a tough issue.

It is a complicated question comparing European and American political efforts. Per se, I don't think its fair to compare the Danish vs. American situation with regard to third party success. Everything in America takes place in sandwiches with bread labeled "Democrat" and "Republican". The bread makes it difficult to see what's inside.

But comparing the platforms is one very good place to start. That might be a good place to start. Do you have a link to the DPP platform. We could compare it with recent versions of the National GOP platform, as well as some of the state GOP platforms, and see how they compare.

I would personally be surprised if the DPP platform is more conservative even than the GOP platforms (let alone the platforms of the smaller parties like Buchanan Reform, although the smaller parties are not comparable with the DPP for reasons I describe above, and of course are much smaller). I think the GOP comparison wil be perfectly fine.

Again, its good seeing you here.

il ragno

2003-11-15 09:20 | User Profile

Once again, you manage to get your ENTIRE foot in your mouth on the first try.

You said, "He still did much better than any other right/[B]third party candidate [/B] had ever done." You did not say, "So who's your guiding star?"

By putting the slash between "right" and "third" you imply either/or. As a third-party alternative candidate, [B]nobody[/B] has had more success than Perot. This is not even open to debate. I'm sorry if you refuse to face reality but it's still reality.

And please don't change the subject [I]again [/I] to how much worse a "Linderite" would do compared to Pat. That's not the issue. The issue is how Buchanan fared and how well or poorly he capitalized on his 92 'base'.

Okiereddust

2003-11-15 09:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Once again, you manage to get your ENTIRE foot in your mouth on the first try.

You said, "He still did much better than any other right/[B]third party candidate [/B] had ever done." You did not say, "So who's your guiding star?"

By putting the slash between "right" and "third" you imply either/or.

The meaning was clear in context. You're the one trying to change the subject. >
As a third-party alternative candidate, [B]nobody[/B] has had more success than Perot. This is not even open to debate. I'm sorry if you refuse to face reality but it's still reality.

We weren't talking about another John Anderson here some idiosynchric moderate between Republican and Democrat, i.e. cross between them. We were talking about a clear alternative.

Now actually I did make a mistake in this regard, but Perot is certainly doesn't demonstrate it. The real example of a third party success in recent history would have been George Wallace, in 1968. Whatever that means now to you. And please don't change the subject [I]again [/I] to how much worse a "Linderite" would do compared to Pat. That's not the issue. The issue is how Buchanan fared and how well or poorly he capitalized on his 92 'base'.[/QUOTE]

I see, the issue is just the failures of our own paleocon guys, and your guys are exempt from criticism. Nice try.

il ragno

2003-11-15 10:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE]We weren't talking about another John Anderson here some idiosynchric moderate between Republican and Democrat, i.e. cross between them. [/QUOTE]

What would YOU call a protectionist who tabs a black female Communist as his running mate to satisfy the cosmetic demands of the Propasphere but a mutant Dem/Rep cross? And why do you veer the subject to Anderson in the [I]first [/I] place? The subject was successful (relatively speaking) third party runs, viz Perot vs Buchanan. In what world does 1% trump 19%?

Smedley Butler

2003-11-15 11:50 | User Profile

Pat, if your reading this give me my money back, and I will give half of it to O.D. Thanks in Advance, ha..... P.S. I have never ask for money back from any one I have ever given to, except this case.

W.R.I.T.O.S

2003-11-15 13:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Smedley Butler]After Dec. 1999 how could any one support puke0cannon.. I gave him the largest cash donation I ever gave polictical hack in my life several hundred! I did ask for it back after the Mazola Foster choice he made, and the Flanni thing was sinkening too, most of U.S who supported him a gave him money, and were desperate for a last chance for peaceful change in the District of Criminals.. I will Not reply to any one defending Puke0. That is a Zero, not a O. He and that piece flag crap, con-artist out Texas got Clitooon elected in the first place and not only destroyed any chace of for a third party, but have truly destroyed the U.S. and now we have full blown despotism figuring out how to put it to U.S.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, I was ready to vote for him untill he kicked white nationalists off of his campaign and denounced "racism."

OlafLynckner

2003-11-15 20:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Thank you for joining us Olaf, and I hope we can get into a good discussion and resolve some of the things about what unfortunately become an irresolvable bone of contention with me for Trisk, that of the comparative success of Buchanan/paleoism vs. Trisk and whatever exactly it was he called himself (categorizing him became another one of those difficulties).

Again, its good seeing you here.[/QUOTE]

Hello and thanks for the welcome.

I do not think the problem is that you support Buchanan. Reading this thread, the problem is that you insulted Triskelion and incorrectly say that the various parties he supports have not done as well as paleos which is simply not right and it seems you ignore his criticism of paleo thinking and were not truthful about what he thinks. Certainly I do not agree with Triskelion on everything as I am more syndical and less guildist, my religious thinking is more esoteric and I am more anti-jew then he. So political differences is not really the problem it sees to me especially as he works with all kinds of Ã¢â¬ÅrightistÃ¢â¬Â groups. Rather, he will not abide by slander and demands honesty from those he deals with in all things.

As to the DPP I am not so much a supporter as he. I am a Ãâ¦lander so my actions are not so much in Denmark and I donÃ¢â¬â¢t speak that language so well. I am not up to translating the DPP manifesto but what little they have put in English is not very useful as the party is trying to portray a moderate view to foreigners then it is. What they publish for Danes is less moderate then for foreigners and what they do in practice is fairly radical. As to the American Republicans the best comparison in Denmark is the Liberal Party which is currently leading the ruling coalition. The DPP is of course not a real nationalist party but it has a very large racial wing which holds quite a bit of influence and the party has promoted policies (like reducing marriages with foreigners which makes a few hundred race traitors leave) that was put into law. I have never heard Buchanan promote such a thing. The DPP has drastically scaled back immigration and welfare to those still there and they deported several thousand. The party leaders and candidates regularly have legal troubles and have been legally ruled to be Ã¢â¬ÅracistÃ¢â¬Â by the courts. They say things all the time that I have never heard any Republican or Buchanan say publicly and the certainly donÃ¢â¬â¢t pretend that Africans are Danes and they openly reject multi-culturalism unlike your hero Buchanan.

They are not as radical as the Fremskridtspartiet which keeps getting threatened with banishment and whose leaders often go to jail for saying illegal things and even promoting violence. The Fremskridtspartiet is rather poorly run and has been in decline for several years so they have problems that the DPP wouldnÃ¢â¬â¢t if they were cleverer and had better lawyers. Still, they get about 1.6% of the vote nationally and elect plenty of people locally which is better then any racial group in the states.

Some other nationalist and populist parties are better then the DPP which Triskelion also is very heavily involved with. Especially in the Baltic, Slavic countries and some Italian and French ones. I like the Hungarian Justice and Life Party (MIEP), Lega Nord and some Baltic parties more then the DPP as does pretty much everyone in the groups Triskelion and I work in. But what matters mos if you want to go somewhere in politics is the ideas you have and how you push them. You can have radical ideals but if you don't target them well (I don't mean sellout) you can do well. Wihout such foundation you will sink even with a big fortune, TV shows and establishment conections which is what we see with Buchanan and the UKIP.

Texas Dissident

2003-11-15 21:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]What would YOU call a protectionist who tabs a black female Communist as his running mate...[/QUOTE]

I don't know what I would call that, but I would call you wrong if you are talking about Buchanan here. Ezola Foster may be many things that I don't know of, but she is certainly no commie, rather a solid, long-time Bircher and much more on the Right than you are. She may have been woefully underqualified to run as Buchanan's VP and Pat may have made the wrong decision in asking her to join his ticket, but that does not mean she deserves to be slandered. By all accounts she is a very decent woman who has always conducted herself professionally and with integrity, even at the cost of personal and career well-being.

Texas Dissident

2003-11-15 21:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=OlafLynckner]Reading this thread, the problem is that you insulted Triskelion and incorrectly say that the various parties he supports have not done as well as paleos which is simply not right and it seems you ignore his criticism of paleo thinking and were not truthful about what he thinks.

As we here in this country who still speak English say, that's a two-way street, Olaf. Comparing the electoral successes within our American two-party system with other countries' multi-party systems is impossible, in my opinion. It's a completely different dynamic.

If you have other topics that relate to this you should start a new thread. Since triskelion has stated he will not post here again, I see no need to waste time debating any points he has raised in his opus.

Okiereddust

2003-11-15 22:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]What would YOU call a protectionist who tabs a black female Communist as his running mate to satisfy the cosmetic demands of the Propasphere but a mutant Dem/Rep cross?

V.P. candidate Foster was a member of the John Birch Society. You seem to confusing with her with Fulani. Interestingly this is the same mistake Trisk made. Makes me wonder if there's some common source of propoganda you're using.

And why do you veer the subject to Anderson in the [I]first [/I] place? The subject was successful (relatively speaking) third party runs, viz Perot vs Buchanan. In what world does 1% trump 19%?[/QUOTE] You and your subject. Apparently you have lost interest in the original purpose of this thread, which was to discuss the chances of successes of third party candidates on our end of the spectrum.

Of course, maybe that's presuming we're on the same end of the political spectrum. Since a lot of people here hint they might vote for Nadar or other Bolshevic, that may be a false assumption.

[quote=OlafLynckner]I am not up to translating the DPP manifesto but what little they have put in English is not very useful as the party is trying to portray a moderate view to foreigners then it is. What they publish for Danes is less moderate then for foreigners and what they do in practice is fairly radical.

One could similarly make a distinction between what Buchanan says to project a moderate view at certain times in certain circles, such as when surrounded by liberal journalists on CNN trying to pick apart his every word, and what his programme and overall them is, which his opponents certainly have felt is very worrisome and dangerous. Check out the ADL site for instance.

This is a very subjective and difficult business comparing a Danish Party whose entire program is in a foreign language which none of us save Trisk and you a little bit can understand, and American parties. Clearly the only way discussions can really go on is if you're willing to completely agree with the interpretation the interpretor is giving you. A lot of the people here were, but I was not, and persisted in asking tough questions, which is the only way one can make progress. Trisk was not willing to persist in answering such direct and sometimes critical dialectics. I hope you can bear with such occasional seeming impertinance and can help us clear up some of our perceptions and mismisceptions of what the DPP is and isn't as well as its relationship to parties that would seem to more directly reflect you and Trisk's thinking like the Fremskridtspartiet

[quote=OlafLynckner] As to the American Republicans the best comparison in Denmark is the Liberal Party which is currently leading the ruling coalition.

I seriously doubt if the Liberal Party's platform would ever remotely approach the Buchanan influenced platform of the 1992 and 1996 National GOP. I personally doubt that even the Danish People's Party would come close. Of course without translation we can only speculate.

Just wondering. You compared the DPP with several foreign parties, which you have a feeling our generally comparable. Do any of these parties have platforms or other materials translated into English that we might use for a comparison? We do have some British Parties of course like the National Front which also might be useful for compartive purposes.

Smedley Butler

2003-11-15 23:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I don't know what I would call that, but I would call you wrong if you are talking about Buchanan here. Ezola Foster may be many things that I don't know of, but she is certainly no commie, rather a solid, long-time Bircher and much more on the Right than you are. She may have been woefully underqualified to run as Buchanan's VP and Pat may have made the wrong decision in asking her to join his ticket, but that does not mean she deserves to be slandered. By all accounts she is a very decent woman who has always conducted herself professionally and with integrity, even at the cost of personal and career well-being.[/QUOTE] He may have meant to write Falanni, and not Foster..

Smedley Butler

2003-11-15 23:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]V.P. candidate Foster was a member of the John Birch Society. You seem to confusing with her with Fulani. Interestingly this is the same mistake Trisk made. Makes me wonder if there's some common source of propoganda you're using.

You and your subject. Apparently you have lost interest in the original purpose of this thread, which was to discuss the chances of successes of third party candidates on our end of the spectrum.

Of course, maybe that's presuming we're on the same end of the political spectrum. Since a lot of people here hint they might vote for Nadar or other Bolshevic, that may be a false assumption.[/QUOTE] Maybe, I have missed some inuedo etc., but I have never got the impression that any one who still votes, and post's on here, has considered the straw man of NYC,DC,HooeyWeird,in any way..

Okiereddust

2003-11-15 23:47 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Smedley Butler]Maybe, I have missed some inuedo etc., but I have never got the impression that any one who still votes, and post's on here, has considered the straw man of NYC,DC,HooeyWeird,in any way..[/QUOTE]

If you're referring to Nadar, I can mention Zoroaster among others who has often talked about his plans to vote for Ralph, but I'm sure there have others, and a number who refer favorably to the concept if not outright endorsing it.

But I don't want to sound like I'm going on a witch hunt. Obviously we nationalists have slim-pickings on whom we support, and if one occasionally stoops to desperate measures one can hardly blame them. Its when people go on witch hunts asking who the others are supporting, insist on systematically denigrating them, and absolutely won't back down, like the National Socialist supporters and sympathizers do with Buchanan, that it creates division throughout the nationalist movement.

And then they have the chutzpah to accuse people like me of creating division for pointing this out.

il ragno

2003-11-16 00:16 | User Profile

You're right, I got Fulani and Ezola Foster mixed up. Shows you the peril of engaging in these extended brawls with Okie...you start catching HIS disease.

Okiereddust

2003-11-16 00:42 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Shows you the peril of engaging in these extended brawls with Okie...you start catching HIS disease.[/QUOTE] :lol:

Smedley Butler

2003-11-16 03:18 | User Profile

Yes, Okie, I did mean Nader and thanks for naming the Naderite's here, but as for Flani, or Nader they are as co-opted as any one who is pre-approved/allowed to run for National office.. As for voting for Nader, I would like to think that poster's here who would bother to vote and voted for NADER, know what a two faced, anti white type he is and just voted to twink the two party beast's nose. After the "election" the demo's were howling about any one who voted for Nader... Nader personally got G.M. to dump the Corvair... I purchased Nader's orginal hard cover book "Unsafe At Any Speed" for one dollar at a garage sale ten years ago and read it.. The later model Corvair's were fine and the suspension problem was solved. He did have them by the gonad's on the option sold that would have made roll over as unlikely as a Chevy Impla in the first Corvair models etc.,for sure.. Still, he is no more fit for the Whore house than all the other trash that has despoiled U.S. in that Office.. Garfield, Herbert Hoover, and perhaps JFK, for standing up against itsalie, to stop them from gettting nukes are the only president's since Jefferson Davis, that have been worth a dime and loved their people. I have read a bio on Grant, and perhaps there is another worthy man who served, I am just not aware of one that I can think of off the top of my head.

Campion Moore Boru

2003-11-17 00:09 | User Profile

Trisk:

I hope you return at some point. You were one of the best posters on the board, who also seemed to understand its purpose.

In any regard, God bless you and yours.  Good luck with all your work- its appreciated.

Franco

2003-11-17 04:41 | User Profile

Tex wrote:

Ezola Foster may be many things that I don't know of, but she is certainly no commie, rather a solid, long-time Bircher and much more on the Right than you are.

Lemme tell ya: there was a guy here in Tucson who owned an auto-repair shop. He was a Bircher. We were friends for awhile -- until one day I had the very nerve to mention God's Special Lapdogs. This guy said: "don't you EVER mention Jews again. Ever!"

Birchers, in my opinion, are useless.

Wanna get the job done? Hire a WN**.

[**That above is just an expression, all you Feds reading this post. No need to watch Uncle Franco's e-mail....although if'n ya did ya would read some interesting stuff about ma gal LaShirley LaWanda KaSheena LaTanya ShaWanda RaHeema Jones...knowwhatImean? Gitdown, homies! Word! Sho'nuff, dawg! Yo -- betta recognize! ]

:holiday:

Texas Dissident

2003-11-17 07:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Birchers, in my opinion, are useless. [/QUOTE]

I'm certain they share the same opinion of you, Franco.

OlafLynckner

2003-12-01 22:07 | User Profile

It looks as if no possibility exists for engaging Okie as someone friendly to NR aspirations. He assumes that my thinking is close to the modern day Fremskridtspartiet which it is not. Several years ago, when Triskelion was involved with them, the Fremskridtspartiet was far better run and getting 15% of the vote nationally. I know that Triskelion never agreed with the party because he had serious problem with the neo-libertarian economics as did a great many people which caused a split which created the DPP who has since eclipsed the Fremskridtspartiet. He stopped being active with the Fremskridtspartiet some time ago and has little regard for what they are now does not approve of violent talk or praise of violence. Both he and I would work with anyone that we think has a possibility of helping stop the destruction of Europa inspite of differences and that is the case many times in the past. You lie about my views and his so I can not view as other then hostile his intentions.

A example of this is when I pointed out that the Dansk Liberal Party was an equivalent of the GOP. Rather then address that matter Okie raises talks about BuchananÃ¢â¬â¢s influence on a GOP platform which is immaterial to my point about the modern Liberal party being like the modern GOP. Seeing what the GOP has done since Buchanan was with them it is clear that what changes he made to the platform had no effect upon the policies that the GOP actually pursued. In fact, the GOP seems to me to be nothing more then a branch of the Likud party that is very pro multi-racialism. I pointed out that the DPP has done some great work in public policy terms which is more important then party propaganda and because American paleos have gone nowhere, never will and you have no basis whatsoever to truthfully address what Triskelion or I has said you make fallacious responses by falsely changing terms of debate away from that which I raised.

As to the Birch society not much needs saying. Dr. Oliver dealt quite well in his book Ã¢â¬ÅAmericaÃ¢â¬â¢s Decline: The Education of a ConservativeÃ¢â¬Â he showed tells how attempting to be conservative without being racial is self nullifying. Seeing the exchanges between the birdman website and the Birch society prove that actively refuse to address jewish issues or race which make them worthless.

I speak of results that anyone can see from looking at the anti-alien policies that the DPP has promoted with some success while in government. You point to an anti-conservative that ran with a Congoid and failed miserably. Okie I see acts the same way towards Il Ragno showing a pattern of abusive and illogical posts which make this forum unpleasant.

Smedley Butler

2003-12-01 22:46 | User Profile

It is no accident tha Dr.Oliver who was a gentleman, scholar, and patriot freedom lover is practically un-heard of.. Reading his works were a revelation to me.. Franco, I would suggest you quit bashing Christian's and instead be specific about demoination's politcal control or it's founder origin's, and connections. The people that are used by apostasy church leaders are the problem. I suggest to you it matters not what you believe about Christians, and try to be thoughtful, as to vistor's who may be asleep and know something is very wrong and are looking for the why's and how's etc..