← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Mike
Thread ID: 12237 | Posts: 89 | Started: 2004-02-09
2004-02-09 11:47 | User Profile
[url]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/edpf/message/3551[/url]
From: vibeke Ostergaard <triskelion14
y...> Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 11:51 am Subject: Why Paleo-Conservatives Fail
Why Paleo-Conservatives and the American Right Fail
What I am about to say will doubtlessly anger and offend many here. Those not wishing to consider disquieting matters but rather pretend that the failure that is American white nationalism, harsh criticism of paleo-conservatism or "movement" celebrities is COINTELPRO style treason best stop reading now. Those that lack the attention span to accurately read five pages best stop reading as well and go back to impotently bemoaning the anti-white outrage of the day which takes up so much time in "rightist" American internet circles.
I noticed a good deal of discussion about the NA and AmRen here recently and I think that the matter requires addressing as it gets to crux of what I see as the most fundamental explanation for the utter failure and irrelevancy of those wishing to defend what remains of Occidental America. Basically, the problem is one of a failure of ideas or their near non-existence to be more precise.
When looking at the American white nationalist as well as paleo-conservatives and the "right-wing" in general the first thing that one notes is that neither is doing much of anything and no prospects are evident that this will change in the foreseeable future.
In the case of white supremacy/white racism (which is almost always incorrectly labeled by Americans as racialism) it's high point in terms of successful militancy was the White League's uprising in the 1874 battle of Liberty Palace which lead to the restoration of a pro-white state government in Louisiana two years latter. The KKK had a great deal of success in building local and state level support between the 1870s and 1920s but achieved very little in practical terms before disintegrating into countless insignificant factions shortly after carrying out the largest racial march in American history in 1925 and they have remained insignificant ever since. In my parent's living memory, American supremacy/white racism has gone nowhere slowly doing little but being a farcical subject of scorn/hatred and a fund raising tool for those that hate the Occident.
Paleo-conservativism (which should more properly be termed nostalgic populism) made credible bids for the presidency in 1948 & 1968 in the South but achieved nothing in terms of establishing a pro- Traditionalistic organization, ideology or changing public policy on any level of government. The election of George Wallace and his wife as governors of Alabama (both of whom came out against segregation) did nothing in terms of preventing the rise of an anti-white post-America or preventing the destruction of white racial solidarity in the South past the ââ¬Ë60s.
The Wallace campaign's only real legacy was it's youth organization which after a battle between Willis Carto, Dr. Pierce and Richard Barrett resulted in the creation of what latter became the National Alliance.
In more recent times paleos have only the debacles of Buchanan's Reform Party campaign and his earlier bid for the GOP presidential nomination which they surreally view as positive or even as qualified successes. Like all nostalgic populist movements, the campaigns mentioned above were simple personality vehicles which declined with the political fortunes of the personalities that ran them.
The reason why both tendencies have gone nowhere is, as previously stated, in large measure a result of the ideological poverty both exhibit.
When I speak of ideology I refer to a systemic and internally consistent system of thought regarding the means for ordering society, critiquing the current order, explaining our decline, redistributing coercive power and the morality such authority is based upon. Ideology matters because in order to effectively challenge the current order one needs to have both a systemic critique and an alternate weltanschauung which serve to guide political/cultural/economic reason and justify a new order. If a political/cultural tendency wishes to be taken seriously by capable, thoughtful idealists who are the ones most likely to suffer lose of employment, ostracism, jail or death for a demonized cause it must be backed up by a well conceived, carefully articulated weltanschauung. Such a view must address not just what's wrong with the current order but what flaws exist within Occidental man and our institutions that allowed our decline to occur as well as an internally consistent response to those weaknesses and public policy prescriptions that logically follow from that analysis.
Obviously, the plebeian masses are and always have been incapable and unwilling to understand any ideology that provides the foundationalisms of any public policy program. Naturally, any person or organization attempting to create a mass movement or an effective activist cadre must state why exactly they reject the current and how it's replacement will benefit what ever segments of society they wish to appeal to in simple, clear terms. Yet the truth remains that any would be anti-establishmentarian leadership seeking fundamental social change must have a firm ideological basis to not just formulate how the new order will operate but infuse an activist cadre with an idealism pure enough to withstand great hardship with no prospect of material wealth or satisfaction of the ego.
In contrast to such a weltanschauung, what is commonly described as paleo-conservatism in the states instead bemoans the destruction of the old order without out ever considering the inherent, systemic contradictions which left it vulnerable to subversion. This fixation upon idealizing bygone eras has left the paleos with little of substance to promote other then an adherence to the institutional norms of the Jeffersonian era, the Antebellum South or the ââ¬Ë50s. Almost never do paleos dedicate any serious effort to explain why the salad days of their favorite era collapsed into the current crapulence with so little resistance. Rather, they speak of the rise of the "managerial" or "nanny" state, the evil of some Supreme Court ruling/bit of legislation, the corrupting impact of the Federal Reserve or the "lose of the nation's moral compass" almost never suspecting the old order they revere had it's own limitations long surpassed or even that it held the seeds of it's own demise.
A consequence of this populist nostalgia is an infatuation with the notion that adherence to constitutionalism will somehow "turn back the clock" and end the cultural Bolshevism that defines the post-American present. Of course the notion that the legal institutions born of the liberalism of the late 1700s can somehow make a comeback without the societal conditions that gave rise to them is seen as farcical to anyone familiar with the decline of Traditionalism as a consequence the undisciplined rise of technology as described by Heidegger & Weber in detail and briefly by Dr. Pierce. Legal doctrines and social institutions can't outlast the society that created them and institutions/doctrines that promote atomistic individualism have as a logical consequence the opportunity for societal discord and the devolution of Traditionalism.
The dogma of the primacy of the individual's "constitutional rights is a chimera because the practical effect of any legal doctrine is exactly what judges rule and nothing else.
The practical outcome of American paleo-cons' ideological poverty, and the "patriot movement" in general, is the often unstated belief that the institutionalism of their favorite bygone era should be restored, by some unstated but socially acceptable means, giving zero consideration to the foundational weaknesses that brought about the current crisis. In essence, paleos are concerned solely with the manifestations of Traditionalism (ex. civic virtue, constitutionalism, high culture etc.) while being actively disinterested in the Organic forces upon which such things depend.
An additional consequence of lacking an ideological foundation is the unresolved/unconsidered problem of balance between the economic and the political as it relates to Traditionalism which is something that the European New Right has covered extensively with near zero attention from American rightists of any description. This critical failure is best displayed by noting the nostalgic longing for the small town bucolicism displayed by Norman Rockwell while viewing with great hostility any questioning of capitalist dogma as it pertains to domestic markets shown by the paleos. Actively ignored is the reality that capitalism, when combined with modern transportation and communications technology, has had as it's logical consequence the concentrations of wealth (and the political power that comes with it) as well as the amplification of class conflict, globalism and "lobbying" by powerful sectoral interests able to subvert governance and undermine the small town romanticism so beloved of paleos.
Worse still is that the atomistic individualism and "bellum omnium contra omnes" style economic warfare engendered by capitalism makes the preservation of Traditionalism and the societal cohesion that it requires impossible. Paleos tenaciously cling to the delusion that capitalism can somehow be separated from globalism, Wal Mart style exploitation and the crass materialism it creates and even restore the Traditionalism it devastated. Such can not be because an economic system based upon the maximization of profit will shape a society in which conspicuous consumption is the aspiration, envy the popular passion and communal aspirations and societal cohesion an unwanted impossibility. Given the nature of capitalism it is entirely understandable that a materialistic and individualistic society became a deracinated mass easily manipulated towards self destruction by an incredibly cohesive alien race. The minimal state so beloved of "strict Constitutional constructionalists" when combined with the faux egalitarianism of capitalism resulted in a consumerist anti-culture in which Organicism became an impossibility. In short, paleos complain about the logical outcomes of capitalism while refusing to consider any systematic critique of it. Naturally, they have no interest in considering alternatives or honestly consider why "free enterprise" became an agent of cultural bolshevism.
American paleo-conservatives and "right wingers" in general continually fail to reverse the decline of the Occidental world because their hazy nostalgia creates an intense desire for respectability from the current order which holds them in contempt. They deceive themselves into thinking that the current Order is merely a decayed version of the past they romanticize rather then a radically anti-Occidental establishment which is logically evolving into the anthesis of all they supposedly value. This fatal flaw is as readily seen in the John Birch Society's condemnation of racialism and appeals to bourgeois snobbery when addressing undeniably racial matters such as busing, immigration, affirmative action and housing integration. It is also clear when one sees the hostility directed at Dr. McDonald's work by self proclaimed conservatives with few voices of dissent while the magazine The American Conservative (TAC) praises Zionism. The ideological decrepitude of paleo-conservatism shines like a decaying fish in the moonlight when one hears Buchanan's numerous condemnations of "racism", his blathering the same lie as the neo-cons he condemns when he asserts that culture can be separated from race or that WWII was a righteous crusade for a multi-racial Europa.
With the exception of the small and fairly inactive C of CC, which is basically a continuation of the Citizen's Councils of the ââ¬Ë60s , no self identified and publicly active conservative will fundamentally reject multi-racialism while many openly embrace the suicidal notion of culture not being racially determined. While a tiny minority of paleos seem to accept Dr. McDonald's "The Culture of Critique" none apparently advocate Jewry's separation from their Occidental host populations. Instead, most paleos seem perfectly willing to accept charlatans like Rabbi Schiller and other "good/Christianized jews", that jewry should be accepted if they object to immigration and that they are possible allies rather then aliens. Given that no American "rightist" outside the C of CC actually promotes institutionalized racial separatism their unwillingness to consider the jewish question is fully expected. Of course such a view point requires ignoring history, biology and the realities of how jewry thinks and is organized. See: [url]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/index70.htm[/url] , [url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=9308[/url] , [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1[/url] 0801975&dopt=Abstract, [url]http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=1010[/url]
A defining element of the WN, paleo and "right-wing" scenes in the states is inactivity. I noted this when living in several different parts of the states and this observation is shared by the hundred or so "movement" contacts I maintain in America. With respect to the paleos and the non racial "right" activity comes primarily in the form of posting "outrages of the day" messages on internet forums and paying subscriptions to magazines or organizations. During presidential election seasons the few genuine paleo activists pump vast amounts of time and money into poorly organized campaigns of paleo celebrities like Buchanan. At the end of election season they have nothing to show for their efforts yet they adamantly refuse to consider any practical form of activism and violently attack any questioning of their ideology. Most bizarre is that most paleos actually view their cause as going somewhere and the Buchanan campaigns meritorious or even a qualified success.
The paleo disposition is nothing more then the uncritical populist nostalgia I have discussed combined with a misplaced "table manner uber alles" desire for establishment respectability rooted in protestant fundamentalism. The ironic end result of this disposition is that paleos are interested in conserving the merely the corrupted vestiges of Occidental Traditionalism in America rather then creating the societal conditions and institutions presently suited to the preservation of the race that created the things they claim to hold dear. That unfortunate reality is that the practical efforts of the paleos are hopeless presidential bids, ultra esoteric legal ruminations and legislative efforts that never go anywhere. The American right is adamant in it's assumption against reason and practice that the failed strategies & proto ideologies of the past will succeed according to some unstated mechanism leaving wonder smugly along the road to serfdom and non-existence.
Now my intention is to not be wholly critical of American paleos as it's obvious that a great many of them are well intentioned, decent people who in their personal lives have resisted the decadence of the age. However, after living in the states for many years, being active in paleo circles, reading the their publications and knowing literally over a hundred of them fairly well it's obvious that they are going nowhere very slowly and will continue as such if the paleo tendency doesn't radically change.
2004-02-10 00:47 | User Profile
Typical Vitebe, always talking about "ideological poverty". Anyway good to have you around Mike.
2004-02-10 01:55 | User Profile
"This critical failure is best displayed by noting the nostalgic longing for the small town bucolicism displayed by Norman Rockwell while viewing with great hostility any questioning of capitalist dogma as it pertains to domestic markets shown by the paleos. Actively ignored is the reality that capitalism, when combined with modern transportation and communications technology, has had as it's logical consequence the concentrations of wealth (and the political power that comes with it) as well as the amplification of class conflict, globalism and "lobbying" by powerful sectoral interests able to subvert governance and undermine the small town romanticism so beloved of paleos."
I think this criticism is rather unfair. Thomas Fleming and other paleo-cons (or "conservatives," as we used to call such people) over at Chronicles have been quite hostile to capitalism, and extremely cognizant of the fact that it leads inevitably to the destruction that was wreaked upon pan-European civilization, in recent years. They've never actually called for national socialism as a replacement for capitalism, no, but its pretty obvious they ain't calling for communism or anarchy either, and there are only so many alternatives....
"The ideological decrepitude of paleo-conservatism shines like a decaying fish in the moonlight when one hears Buchanan's numerous condemnations of "racism", his blathering the same lie as the neo-cons he condemns when he asserts that culture can be separated from race or that WWII was a righteous crusade for a multi-racial Europa."
That's really unfair; Buchanan took an enormous amount of heat in 1999, when he first announced his split from the GOP and his intent to seek the Reform Party presidential nomination, for his claim in his book published at the same time, "A Republic Not an Empire," that there was no need for the United States to involve itself in a war against Germany during the 1940s.
Otherwise, nice job!
2004-02-10 02:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]> This critical failure is best displayed by noting the nostalgic longing for the small town bucolicism displayed by Norman Rockwell while viewing with great hostility any questioning of capitalist dogma as it pertains to domestic markets shown by the paleos. Actively ignored is the reality that capitalism, when combined with modern transportation and communications technology, has had as it's logical consequence the concentrations of wealth (and the political power that comes with it) as well as the amplification of class conflict, globalism and "lobbying" by powerful sectoral interests able to subvert governance and undermine the small town romanticism so beloved of paleos.
I think this criticism is rather unfair. Thomas Fleming and other paleo-cons (or "conservatives," as we used to call such people) over at Chronicles have been quite hostile to capitalism, and extremely cognizant of the fact that it leads inevitably to the destruction that was wreaked upon pan-European civilization, in recent years. They've never actually called for national socialism as a replacement for capitalism, no, but its pretty obvious they ain't calling for communism or anarchy either, and there are only so many alternatives....
It seems unfair to me too, especially from someone who is always criticizes socialist tendencies in others as "Bolshevic".
[quote=Kevin_O'Keeffe]> The ideological decrepitude of paleo-conservatism shines like a decaying fish in the moonlight when one hears Buchanan's numerous condemnations of "racism", his blathering the same lie as the neo-cons he condemns when he asserts that culture can be separated from race or that WWII was a righteous crusade for a multi-racial Europa.
That's really unfair; Buchanan took an enormous amount of heat in 1999, when he first announced his split from the GOP and his intent to seek the Reform Party presidential nomination, for his claim in his book published at the same time, "A Republic Not an Empire," that there was no need for the United States to involve itself in a war against Germany during the 1940s.
Otherwise, nice job![/QUOTE]
Don't we know its unfair? Listen though to how dogmatically Vitebe criticizes Buchanan on one of his last threads here.
[url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=10811]A Conservative No More - The Tribal Politics of Pat Buchanan[/url]
2004-02-10 05:11 | User Profile
Triskelion's challenge to the paleocons and the hardcore WNs hits the nail on the head in so far as it correctly identifies both camps as intellectually bankrupt failures.
Great find; thanks for posting this.
2004-02-10 05:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Mike] The paleo disposition is nothing more then the uncritical populist nostalgia I have discussed combined with a misplaced "table manner uber alles" desire for establishment respectability rooted in protestant fundamentalism. The ironic end result of this disposition is that paleos are interested in conserving the merely the corrupted vestiges of Occidental Traditionalism in America rather then creating the societal conditions and institutions presently suited to the preservation of the race that created the things they claim to hold dear. That unfortunate reality is that the practical efforts of the paleos are hopeless presidential bids, ultra esoteric legal ruminations and legislative efforts that never go anywhere... [/QUOTE]
Good point, too much verbiage. The same point was made far better about two years ago by Robert Frenz (RIP) noting that the Fifties were over and they ain't coming back.
Same basic point. Time to stop diddling around.
2004-02-10 07:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ragnar]Good point, too much verbiage. The same point was made far better about two years ago by Robert Frenz (RIP) noting that the Fifties were over and they ain't coming back.
Same basic point. Time to stop diddling around.[/QUOTE]Uh-huh right.
He says we're supposed to stop diddling around and get serious. Stop endless talk on the internet and do - what? Like he is doing and telling us on the internet, Uh-huh.
Does anyone really understand what he says, or are we all just nodding our heads?
All I ever get from Triskelion basically is we're supposed to be smarter more clever, read Pareto. Just like Triskelion does of course.
He has some good points individually, but - what's really the point? Yes yes, we should all be like these clever Scandanavian ubermenshen and quit being such American or other types of dummies, we should all be rich like him and have time to study endless volumes of theory.
For people that all agree we should do more and talk less, as you say, we sure put out a lot of verbiage. And the more they criticize the verbiage, the more of it they generate themselves.
2004-02-10 07:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ragnar]Good point, too much verbiage.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it seems our dearly departed friend hasn't lost the same lecturing school marm tone. Quite similar to the leather-elbowed, tweed coat Calvinist at the lecturn he so fondly loves to criticize.
The paleo disposition is nothing more then the uncritical populist nostalgia I have discussed combined with a misplaced "table manner uber alles" desire for establishment respectability rooted in protestant fundamentalism.
See what I mean. Speaking as a paleo, if establishment respectability was my overriding concern, I dare say over half the active membership here would not be in existence. No, my desire is to gain sympathetic fellow-travelers and converts in order to build a strength in numbers. Influence within the establishment likely follows. They simply cannot ignore a deafening, howling rage.
The ironic end result of this disposition is that paleos are interested in conserving the merely the corrupted vestiges of Occidental Traditionalism in America rather then creating the societal conditions and institutions presently suited to the preservation of the race that created the things they claim to hold dear.
Not sure from where he draws these conclusions or if he simply makes it up out of whole cloth. This may be the case with paleo ideologues like Fleming, but Fleming doesn't speak for all paleos. Many of us here have already doggedly maintained that the type of culture/society we would wish to maintain/bring forth can only be realized in a populace consisting of white (protestant?) Christians. And it wasn't just 'the race' that created the things I hold dear, for 'the race' has created different cultures in other lands that I don't necessarily desire for my own homeland. To be quite exact, it was the race illuminated with a muscular, Protestant Christianity that built my ideal culture.
That unfortunate reality is that the practical efforts of the paleos are hopeless presidential bids, ultra esoteric legal ruminations and legislative efforts that never go anywhere...
If we condemn the future with failures of the past, then all of us no matter the ideology might as well hang up our coats and go home. This is nothing but an obstinate pessimism whose sole purpose is to discourge, demean and hamstring any effort at moving forward and advancing any positive agenda for our folk. Be gone, devils!
2004-02-10 08:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The paleo disposition is nothing more then the uncritical populist nostalgia I have discussed....[/QUOTE]
I dunno, I don't think you can mount a counter-revolution [I]without [/I] populist nostalgia, "critical" or no. In our case it seems unavoidable, given that the first public works project a victiorious ZOG tends to undertake is a dismantling/discrediting of the past. How many people under 35 do [I]you [/I] meet who take it as gospel that America the Beautiful really was founded in 1941 when we put away our Klan hoods and smallpox-infected blankets, pulled up our britches and went off to fight Nazis and save Jews? How many who weren't even zygotes in the 50s can be counted on to dismiss that decade as a throbbing police state nightmare era? How many drank the Jewish Kool-Aid and believe themselves to be iconoclastic gadflies because they discount all of Western Civilization as the Horrible Epoch of White Privilege and Hate?
No future without a past, Trisk - and one man's 'nostalgia' is another man's 'history', to say nothing of 'heritage'.
2004-02-10 08:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Does anyone really understand what he says, or are we all just nodding our heads?[/QUOTE]
We're understanding and nodding our heads. Like I said, the guy uses maybe 1,500 words to say what Frenz used to say in less than 50.
Triskelion is a European. His need to announce his departure from this forum should have told you he's also a drama queen who seems to appreciate reviews -- good, bad, whatever -- and bombast, grand departures and fan mail. I mean, it's just how he is.
So okay, trisk, partly-good. But American audiences just aren't especially interested.
2004-02-10 08:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Yes, it seems our dearly departed friend hasn't lost the same lecturing school marm tone. Quite similar to the leather-elbowed, tweed coat Calvinist at the lecturn he so fondly loves to criticize.
:lol:.
Except this schoolmarm, has like the prophet Jonah, shaken off the dust of his feet and gone up to some hill, where he sits, waiting for the firestorm of organic fate to devour us.
Can't say I always miss him that much, hate to say it.
The paleo disposition is nothing more then the uncritical populist nostalgia I have discussed combined with a misplaced "table manner uber alles" desire for establishment respectability rooted in protestant fundamentalism.[quote=TD]See what I mean. Speaking as a paleo, if establishment respectability was my overriding concern, I dare say over half the active membership here would not be in existence. No, my desire is to gain sympathetic fellow-travelers and converts in order to build a strength in numbers. Influence within the establishment likely follows. They simply cannot ignore a deafening, howling rage.
Trisk rags on the Nazi's/VNNers for being not respectable enough, and us for being too respectable. Without following some brave, brilliant individual to show us where to walk the exact line, we just can't seem to make it by our stodgy little selves.
No, actually for my opinion the problem with the hard right, and especially WN's, is there are too many prima donna's with prickly personalities and gargantuan ego's, who act like cranks on the internet typing out long lists of theory which no one outside of here ever reads, instead of doing something helpful.
The ironic end result of this disposition is that paleos are interested in conserving the merely the corrupted vestiges of Occidental Traditionalism in America rather then creating the societal conditions and institutions presently suited to the preservation of the race that created the things they claim to hold dear.[quote=TD]Not sure from where he draws these conclusions or if he simply makes it up out of whole cloth. This may be the case with paleo ideologues like Fleming, but Fleming doesn't speak for all paleos. Many of us here have already doggedly maintained that the type of culture/society we would wish to maintain/bring forth can only be realized in a populace consisting of white (protestant?) Christians. And it wasn't just 'the race' that created the things I hold dear, for 'the race' has created different cultures in other lands that I don't necessarily desire for my own homeland. To be quite exact, it was the race illuminated with a muscular, Protestant Christianity that built my ideal culture.
It just strikes me as Nietzschien, ubermenschen posturing. Our goals and that of paleoconservatism aren't high enough, utopian enough for his national socialist ego, aren't perfect enough for him and other NS to get involvd in. They are the same attitudes that typify the NA "waiting for the gotterdam" mentality, the moderate NA line which really Trisk follows quit closely, although he gets mad when we compare him to other, lesser individuals.
That unfortunate reality is that the practical efforts of the paleos are hopeless presidential bids, ultra esoteric legal ruminations and legislative efforts that never go anywhere...[quote=TD]If we condemn the future with failures of the past, then all of us no matter the ideology might as well hang up our coats and go home. This is nothing but an obstinate pessimism whose sole purpose is to discourge, demean and hamstring any effort at moving forward and advancing any positive agenda for our folk. Be gone, devils![/QUOTE]Yes I know its all our fault. We never listen to our National Socialist dogmatists who have all the answers.
No actualy I think if paleo's have a fault it's that we spend to much time listening to people who really don't want to do anything but put out schoolmarmly complaints.
I think its just sort of like the academic who always blames the failures of his ideas, not on himself, but on the people who fail to carry them out.
We hear the same thing in leftist ideologue circles. Communism isn't a failure, its just that of the stupid people who carry it out. Its more of this Phariseeical "this multitude who knowest not the law is accursed" anathema's.
No, what's wrong with western nationalism is that it lacks real leaders, and is a result is neither led nor governed. No one knows this better than the people who to cover their own weaknesses like to spend too much of their time criticizing, and pretending that the rest of the movement fails because they don't properly appreciate the great wisdom of the ubermenschen with their proper NS pedigrees, training, and innate wisdom.
If Trisk was still hear and willing to take it a little instead of always dishing it out, I could bear his incessent complaining about everything and everybody, but when he just crawls off in some corner and expects us to study his every treatise like stones containing the Ten Commandments I just say, sorry you feel that way. Go off an establish your own folkish paradise on your own, and when you've gotr something to show for it tell us and we'll take a look at it.
2004-02-10 09:52 | User Profile
You are one tiresome busted valise, Okie, you know that?
I've seen no evidence - ever - that Ostergard is a Nazi sympathizer or WN of any sort. So naturally you pry open that shabby, weather-beaten sample case full of NS-bashing invective that you drag around with you like a Siamese twin and reach in for a tried-and-true stinkbomb to hurl. Sitting there with your cereal-box sheriff's badge on, responding to every jibe made against your St Pat by tossing one or another of those dud "VNNer"/"ubermenschen" zingers you're so inordinately fond of.
One day you might actually learn to hold your own in an argument without the security-blanket of a Hitler pinata to hit every so often for effect. Maybe that day will come in my lifetime even...but I ain't holding my breath.
One other thing. [QUOTE]Our goals and that of paleoconservatism aren't high enough, utopian enough for his national socialist ego, aren't perfect enough for him and other NS to get involvd in. [/QUOTE] If there's one thing you CAN'T accuse Ostergard of it's of being too high-and-mighty to get his hands dirty. He's been an activist for a long time, involved in grass-roots organizing and local politics. If anything, he seems to me disheartened by those of us who agree on huge goals: racial separatism, 'restoring' the West, banishing entire ethnicities from our shores, etc, who have neither the patience nor the vision to begin a thousand-mile journey in small, "inconsequential" [I]local [/I] steps , but who instead caterwaul "are we there yet?" from the back seat.
Again, I don't think Ostergard understands the US - or human nature - well enough to write the correct prescription. But for yopu to claim he's some kind of dogmatically inflexible elitist who'd rather curse the darkness than light a candle is ludicrous.
Oh and PS: Trisk isn't 'posting' these essays, let alone attempting to draw worshipful attention with them. He wrote this alright, but somebody else altogether posted them.
2004-02-10 11:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]You are one tiresome busted valise, Okie, you know that?
No. I never really you heard you say that before.
I've seen no evidence - ever - that Ostergard is a Nazi sympathizer or WN of any sort.
You obviously are blind. Vitebe has used NS to describe himself, albeit with his usual qualifications. I think he would take personal offense at you denying that he's a WN.
So naturally you pry open that shabby, weather-beaten sample case full of NS-bashing invective that you drag around with you like a Siamese twin and reach in for a tried-and-true stinkbomb to hurl. Sitting there with your cereal-box sheriff's badge on, responding to every jibe made against your St Pat by tossing one or another of those dud "VNNer"/"ubermenschen" zingers you're so inordinately fond of.
Another Pat Basher from VNN. You know sometimes I think I much prefer the regular VNN/WN to those that put on airs, that claim their "cultured" WN, and deign to take offense when some calls them a WN or something they take offense at.
Even the VNNers look down at people like you.
One other thing. If there's one thing you CAN'T accuse Ostergard of it's of being too high-and-mighty to get his hands dirty. He's been an activist for a long time, involved in grass-roots organizing and local politics. If anything, he seems to me disheartened by those of us who agree on huge goals: racial separatism, 'restoring' the West, banishing entire ethnicities from our shores, etc, who have neither the patience nor the vision to begin a thousand-mile journey in small, "inconsequential" [I]local [/I] steps , but who instead caterwaul "are we there yet?" from the back seat.
Vitebe disheartened by agreeing on racial separatism. We aren't talking about any real person here - just some asserted figment of your imagination.
Now he undoubtedly does achieve some things in his homeland. His organng skills seem quite substantial. When he doesn't put on the schoolmarmly tone he can be nice.
Again, I don't think Ostergard understands the US - or human nature - well enough to write the correct prescription.
At last we agree on something.
But for yopu to claim he's some kind of dogmatically inflexible elitist who'd rather curse the darkness than light a candle is ludicrous.
I agree, for the average VNNer he does pretty good a lot of the time. If that's your standard. But even when hectoring them he appears dogmatic and negative at times. (granted, they deserve it)
Your standards are consistently pretty low in this regard. And yet you still convincingly fail to meet them.
Oh and PS: Trisk isn't 'posting' these essays, let alone attempting to draw worshipful attention with them. He wrote this alright, but somebody else altogether posted them.[/QUOTE]
Let's see - did he just put them in a bottle? Come on. He wants someone to read them, albeit we're no longer his first priority. (For which I don't shed too many tears).
2004-02-10 13:29 | User Profile
The Gods are with you, Okie. I composed a long reply to your post and my system locked up, totally obliterating what I'd typed.
There are too many ridiculous claims, distortions and instances of outright cowflop in your screed to warrant me wasting any further effort on it. Perhaps someone with more patience will point them out to you.
Re your comment about WNs who 'put on airs', however, I'm glad to see you making some strides. You no longer refer to everyone brighter than yourself as "Alan Dershowitz". That's a start, anyway. (But what choice did you have, really, when even the kid working the counter at Taco Bell is "Alan Dershowitz"?)
2004-02-11 05:11 | User Profile
Okiereddust: ââ¬ÅTypical Vitebe, always talking about ideological poverty.ââ¬Â
Typical Okiereddust stupidity. He considered nothing in the V.O. article but he condemns it in total showing his ideological poverty perfectly. If Okiereddust had any serious response he would write of the great paleo election stories, great public policy successes or talk of how paleos counter what the theorists V.O. sites say about the nature of Tradition and offer up some meta-political explanation and self criticism. He did none of those things because he canââ¬â¢t.
Kevin Oââ¬â¢Keeffe thinks it unfair to criticize paleos on capitalism yet gives no support for his claim that they reject it. Instead, V.O. pointed out, with no meaningful challenge, that paleos do not call for radical economic change, they do not declare themselves against capitalism. Instead, they reject globalism but not the causes of it which was a major point of the article. The people he mentioned have no alternative to capitalism, which Kevin Oââ¬â¢Keeffe admits, because they do not reject but think tariffs will save the USA while otherwise they want deregulation and the neo-liberalism of the Reagan era.
He then defends Buchanan with considering any of the points V.O. raised about him because much of what Buchanan say is undefendable. V.O. wrote of someone banned from this freedom loving board we said what I think sums up what the paleos are about ââ¬ÅMore than anything else, they are disappointed with the RESULTS of their OWN ideology!! Pat Buchanan said on Scarborough Country with Jared Taylor the other day that blacks were as American as apple pie, that the barbarian Negro slave property in the New World was more American than the Puritans who came later. They are unwilling to accept the fact that it was their glorified past which made the present will live in possible in the very first place.ââ¬Â
Okiereddust: ââ¬ÅIt seems unfair to me too, especially from someone who is always criticizes socialist tendencies in others as "Bolshevic".ââ¬Â
Perhaps Okiereddust has a worse understanding of English then I or he is just continuing to lie about what V.O. has said as he so often has done. What V.O. attacks is concentrated economic power systems like American capitalism, Bolshevism or social democrats. What he favours is neo-guildism and employee ownership. Everyone that has heard him speak or read what he say knows this.
Okiereddust: Don't we know its unfair? Listen though to how dogmatically Vitebe criticizes Buchanan on one of his last threads here.
V.O. pointed out that what Buchanan has often said is socially destructiv and why. You defend Buchanan totally uncritically even when he grovels before multi-racialism. I care about conserving Occidental mankind. Paleos like Buchanan donââ¬â¢t which is why they will never be a solution to the problems we face.
Ragnar: ââ¬ÅGood point, too much verbiage. The same point was made far better about two years ago by Robert Frenz (RIP) noting that the Fifties were over and they ain't coming back.ââ¬Â
The point is that paleos fail because they have a poorly developed ideology which as formed them into the failures they are now. Mr. Franz speaks of why the ââ¬Ë50s canââ¬â¢t come back but not why paleos are dis-conected from the world or why they view decades of defeat as the nature outcome of a shallow ideology.
Okiereddust: ââ¬ÅUh-huh right.
He says we're supposed to stop diddling around and get serious. Stop endless talk on the internet and do - what? Like he is doing and telling us on the internet, Uh-huh.
Does anyone really understand what he says, or are we all just nodding our heads?
All I ever get from Triskelion basically is we're supposed to be smarter more clever, read Pareto. Just like Triskelion does of course.
He has some good points individually, but - what's really the point? Yes yes, we should all be like these clever Scandanavian ubermenshen and quit being such American or other types of dummies, we should all be rich like him and have time to study endless volumes of theory.
For people that all agree we should do more and talk less, as you say, we sure put out a lot of verbiage. And the more they criticize the verbiage, the more of it they generate themselves.ââ¬Â What a stupid bastard is Okiereddust:. He left this forum months ago and he has attacked him many times but never considers what he says honestly. V.O. has a very successful activism program worked out by others which he promotes but Okiereddust ignores that truth because truth is foreign to him. True it is that V.O. recommends things to read but seeing that Okiereddust will never honestly read what he posts and lie about him every time something comes up here it is clear that discussing ideas is something beyond his moral ability. As for being rich he works around the clock, gives 20% of his income to the cause and gives his workers ownership of the business he started because he felt it right to do.
Ragnar: ââ¬ÅWe're understanding and nodding our heads. Like I said, the guy uses maybe 1,500 words to say what Frenz used to say in less than 50.
Triskelion is a European. His need to announce his departure from this forum should have told you he's also a drama queen who seems to appreciate reviews -- good, bad, whatever -- and bombast, grand departures and fan mail. I mean, it's just how he is.
So okay, trisk, partly-good. But American audiences just aren't especially interestedââ¬Â
V.O. said why he left because he states why he does everything out of honesty. No drama was involved just a detailed explination about why this place is not worth bothering with. Those that have a meaningful ideology express it with the level of care that V.O. has. Those that donââ¬â¢t attack people like him from the safety of screen name. Clearly he is not alone as this forum has lost 2 of 3 readers in the last 3 months: [url]http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=originaldissent.com[/url].
I have gotten to know V.O. very well and everything in his life is motivated by his ideals. He has suffered greatly for them and given much of himself for others. I say that those that attack him deserve no respect until they have a history of real world sacrifice to meet his. As to Americans not being interested I know from when I helped his family when he was at hospital that a few hundred Americans strongly disagree with you and have seen the letters, visitors and gifts to prove it.
ââ¬ÅExcept this schoolmarm, has like the prophet Jonah, shaken off the dust of his feet and gone up to some hill, where he sits, waiting for the firestorm of organic fate to devour us. Can't say I always miss him that much, hate to say it.ââ¬Â
What an ass you are. V.O. has done more of a practical nature in several nations then a worthless scum like you has even thought of. Why donââ¬â¢t you match his electoral efforts, build a couple of schools, have your health destroyed, your first born murdered, your home burned down, spend 18 months in prison for your beliefs and still go on as if nothing happened because your faith demands it? You canââ¬â¢t because you are a coward attacking and lying behind a screen name some one that has given everything he can because he says life is about sacrifice to things greater then yourself.
ââ¬ÅIt just strikes me as Nietzschien, ubermenschen posturing. Our goals and that of paleoconservatism aren't high enough, utopian enough for his national socialist ego, aren't perfect enough for him and other NS to get involvd in. They are the same attitudes that typify the NA "waiting for the gotterdam" mentality, the moderate NA line which really Trisk follows quit closely, although he gets mad when we compare him to other, lesser individuals. ââ¬Å
Bullshit. He follows the examples of others, does things meaninful and rejects utopianism. He rejected paleos because they have failed, refuse to admit it and have too many dishonourable scum like you in their ranks.
ââ¬Å You obviously are blind. Vitebe has used NS to describe himself, albeit with his usual qualifications. I think he would take personal offense at you denying that he's a WN.ââ¬Â
If you could read and had something other then dishonest contempt to offer you would note that V.O. is not at all in favour of using Hitler as a model for modern politics and that he promotes neo-guildism. Explaining that racialism is different then the freak show called a movement in the states or that NS is far more then Hitler is something you will never realize because you are pig headed and canââ¬â¢t be bothered to honestly read anything that differs from you choose to think.
Seeing the stupid, unreasoning rejection of what V.O. says and uncritical worship of paleo-con thinking and leaders like Buchanan it is easy to see why the USA is hopeless. If anyone deserves to lose continue losing it is filth like Okiereddust and any movement that accepts people like him.
2004-02-11 08:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal]Seeing the stupid, unreasoning rejection of what V.O. says and uncritical worship of paleo-con thinking and leaders like Buchanan it is easy to see why the USA is hopeless. If anyone deserves to lose continue losing it is filth like Okiereddust and any movement that accepts people like him.[/QUOTE]
This is great stuff, tris..Bjarni. Thanks for coming down from the mountain and taking the time to compose and post it.
Say what you will, but I assure you that Okie is as white-bread as we come, thereby one of your 'folk'. So utilizing your paradigm, you're stuck with him one way or the other. That is of course unless race is not the all-encompassing delineator your ideologies proclaim it to be. However I can sympathize in that we all have our crosses to bear.
God bless.
2004-02-11 17:59 | User Profile
What a stupid pratt you are. I see once again that you can't address anything I say which pretty much proves what was said in the first article is right. You and the other lying cowards here are simply not worth bothering with which is why your site has lost 2 of three readers in just 3 months.
2004-02-11 18:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal]What a stupid pratt you are. I see once again that you can't address anything I say which pretty much proves what was said in the first article is right. You and the other lying cowards here are simply not worth bothering with which is why your site has lost 2 of three readers in just 3 months.[/QUOTE]
I'm hurt, Barney.
Nevertheless I shall press on, for I can do nothing else.
2004-02-11 18:20 | User Profile
Slapping the olive branch out of the other fellow's hand - [I]there's [/I] a surefire method to build consensus! I'll wager you turn the lights off at night by shooting the fixture, too.
See what I meant about [I]not understanding human nature[/I]?
2004-02-11 18:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]The Gods are with you, Okie. I composed a long reply to your post and my system locked up, totally obliterating what I'd typed.
There are too many ridiculous claims, distortions and instances of outright cowflop in your screed to warrant me wasting any further effort on it.
Good try Raggy. Did you use this line very much with your professors, "hey I had a great paper written, but my computer locked up and I lost it" ? :lol:
Maybe you should listen to the voice of God. I don't have the patience of a priest, but maybe Walter Yannis will consent to hear your confession.
Perhaps someone with more patience will point them out to you.
Yeah, like your friend BjarniTyrdal. Perfect example of your breed.
Re your comment about WNs who 'put on airs', however, I'm glad to see you making some strides. You no longer refer to everyone brighter than yourself as "Alan Dershowitz". That's a start, anyway. (But what choice did you have, really, when even the kid working the counter at Taco Bell is "Alan Dershowitz"?)[/QUOTE]Taco bell? No way Jose. :alucard:
2004-02-11 18:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Slapping the olive branch out of the other fellow's hand - [I]there's [/I] a surefire method to build consensus! I'll wager you turn the lights off at night by shooting the fixture, too.
See what I meant about [I]not understanding human nature[/I]?[/QUOTE] Olive branch? :lol: You VNNers olive branch is more like the kid who tries to make up with his teacher by bring her a bocquet of flowers. Unfortunately its always poisen ivy.
Don't know whether the kid is impish or imbecilic, but he's definetly not high school, let alone college, material.
2004-02-11 18:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Slapping the olive branch out of the other fellow's hand - [I]there's [/I] a surefire method to build consensus! I'll wager you turn the lights off at night by shooting the fixture, too.
See what I meant about [I]not understanding human nature[/I]?[/QUOTE]
Wisdom and insight into human nature can be displayed with the realization that sometimes concensus cannot be built and/or fundamental differences bridged. Just let it be and I assure you you won't find me over on Danish/Finnish political boards harranguing them.
2004-02-11 19:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Good try Raggy. Did you use this line very much with your professors, "hey I had a great paper written, but my computer locked up and I lost it" ? [/QUOTE]
Actually, Okie, it's practically a matter of public record that I was losing posts left and right yesterday due to what I assume was an AOL snafu. Really; you could look it up. And I never [I]had [/I] any professors, sad to say. I bought these 'airs' I put on via a mail-order elitist-supply company.
[QUOTE]Olive branch? You VNNers... [/QUOTE]
I'd be surprised if Tyndal even [I]visits [/I] VNN, let alone contributes to it. But objective reality has never impeded your ability to seed your inane drool with VNN/Hitler kneeslappers before - why start now?
[QUOTE]Vitebe disheartened by agreeing on racial separatism. We aren't talking about any real person here - just some asserted figment of your imagination.[/QUOTE]
My vote for the most incomprehensible - thus, really, the most typical - Okie-penned sentence of 2004. I'd ordinarily take the contrary position except here I don't know what the hell it is you're even [I]saying[/I]. But I'm sure it's wrong anyway.
2004-02-11 20:01 | User Profile
I think personal loyalties and sympathies got in the way of cold judgment here.
2004-02-11 20:42 | User Profile
I used to think that V.O. was rightous for defending American conservatives against total attack by CR types but now I see that he was foolish for puting his trust in the paleo rats that control this forum. Given that no one here has even tried to be honest in debating anything he say and that Tex and Okie show nothing but hatred toV.O. something esel is going on here. I think that paleos are angered by the failure that is their movement but lack the honesty to realize so much so they attack with lies and distortions some one that has acheaved more then they. Tex and Okie are like leftists in that envy and blind hate keep them from doing any else but mis-represent those that are more capable from behind a keyboard.
"Just let it be and I assure you you won't find me over on Danish/Finnish political boards harranguing them."
Instead, you simply attack men better then you on your sorry little forum with your attack dog Okie with lies and mis-prepresents. If you are like most all Americans you speak no other language so i doubt you could read any European forum if you wanted to (which you clearly don't). Seeing how you are unable to honestly read anything V.O. has written in English you clearly can not contribute to any real debate with those you disagree with in any language.
As to VNN it is unknown to me. If it is anything like a typical AMerican paleo or race hate site it would not be worth visiting.
2004-02-11 21:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]I don't understand why Vibeke Ostergard's essays inspire so much hostility among certain ranks here. I don't necessarily agree with every sentence he writes, but almost everything he's written seems to be quite balanced, well-informed,......... Based on all of this, I can only conclude that the hostility towards VO is purely based on personality rather than on substance and ideology.[/QUOTE]
Nobody here is hostile to V.O., or disagrees he puts a lot of work into his essays. (His friends admittedly are something else). This is all water under the bridge anyway. If you want to understand the source of our disagreement, go back to the last threads the people here besides you partipated in.
2004-02-12 05:51 | User Profile
All I read is criticism. Got anything constructive to offer in the way of an approach or a core around which to build a viable movement? If not, why should I care what you think?
2004-02-12 11:15 | User Profile
"Kevin O’Keeffe thinks it unfair to criticize paleos on capitalism yet gives no support for his claim that they reject it."
Presumably the level of debate has not sunk to such a depth where one gets accused of lying merely because one does not have a plethora of bibliographical citations at hand. For the record, in the pages of Chronicles, I have read harsh criticisms of capitalism from Tom Fleming, Chilton Williamson, Sam Francis and others. Its true they tend to be a little vague about spelling out what their alternative model would be, but there are only so many options in that regard. Clearly, they are hoping their readers will connect a few dots on their own, rather than further exposing themselves to the slings and arrows of the neo-"conservatives" by actually promoting an alternative to capitalism (which, irrespective of whatever alternative they did offer, would invariably be portrayed as either national socialism, communism or anarchism, depending on which of those three the media slanderers thought would appear most plausible to their target audience). Interestingly enough, while I remain somewhat vague about what neo-guildism would be, the only place I've ever (previously) read of its being advocated is in the pages of Chronicles. So perhaps V.O. (whoever that is; I'm sort of new around here) has less of an argument with the paleos than he supposes....
"I care about conserving Occidental mankind. Paleos like Buchanan don’t which is why they will never be a solution to the problems we face."
Buchanan clearly cares about defending White civilization, as any serious observer of his career over the last two decades is forced to admit. Its true that his strategy for achieving his goal, which includes perhaps an over-emphasis on retaining his viability within the system, so to speak, may well be a serious misjudgement. But to suggest that his heart isn't in the right place and that he is, for all practical purposes, little better than Abe Foxman or Charles Schumer (as you seem to be doing; correct me if I'm wrong) is frankly stupid. The paleoconservative strategy and the national socialist strategy have BOTH been dismal failures in the United States, so it behooves the adherents of one not to be too criticial of adherents of the other. Due in no small part to its track record of success in Germany and much of Europe during the 1933-1945 period, and its apparent European re-emergence in recent years, I have long tended to favor the national socialist strategy myself. But I think it behooves all of us to assist in any pro-White efforts we find ourselves in a position to so assist and in the final analysis, the way we'll learn whether paleoconservatism or national socialism makes more sense is when one triumphs and the other becomes a rightfully honored historical footnote.
2004-02-12 12:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]"Kevin Oââ¬â¢Keeffe thinks it unfair to criticize paleos on capitalism yet gives no support for his claim that they reject it."
Presumably the level of debate has not sunk to such a depth where one gets accused of lying merely because one does not have a plethora of bibliographical citations at hand....
:lol: Byrni/Barney or whoevver he is calls me a liar every time he responds to me, just because I disagree with him.
That is (one of the reasons) why I call him totalitarian. I could point out that acceptence of these tactics is usually an sign of totalitarianism also.
So perhaps V.O. (whoever that is; I'm sort of new around here) has less of an argument with the paleos than he supposes.... V.O. is Vitebe Ostergaard (I think I've got the last name a little wrong) who posted as Triskelion. He's got a long resume arond here. Just check the posts started by him.
"I care about conserving Occidental mankind. Paleos like Buchanan donââ¬â¢t which is why they will never be a solution to the problems we face."
Buchanan clearly cares about defending White civilization, as any serious observer of his career over the last two decades is forced to admit.
You're talking to a brick wall here Kevin.
Its true that his strategy for achieving his goal, which includes perhaps an over-emphasis on retaining his viability within the system, so to speak, may well be a serious misjudgement. But to suggest that his heart isn't in the right place and that he is, for all practical purposes, little better than Abe Foxman or Charles Schumer (as you seem to be doing; correct me if I'm wrong) is frankly stupid. At best The paleoconservative strategy and the national socialist strategy have BOTH been dismal failures in the United States, so it behooves the adherents of one not to be too criticial of adherents of the other. Due in no small part to its track record of success in Germany and much of Europe during the 1933-1945 period, and its apparent European re-emergence in recent years, I have long tended to favor the national socialist strategy myself. But I think it behooves all of us to assist in any pro-White efforts we find ourselves in a position to so assist and in the final analysis, the way we'll learn whether paleoconservatism or national socialism makes more sense is when one triumphs and the other becomes a rightfully honored historical footnote.[/QUOTE] Triskelion and his cohorts here give lip service to this idea, but in practice it seems the limits of deviation from National Socialist dogma they will tolerate before they anathemacize someone as litle better than Foxman, like they do Buchanan, is very small. And of course they get very mad when you point this out. Not to mention that this does seem to many reasonable people like yourself to compare to Linder.
I don't know, we've never seem to have much luck wit the monied, organizational types like Linder and Triskelion. Why, I privately speculate on from time to time. Is it just stupidity or some political inner fact of VNN politics (most of the people who tend to follow the anti-Buchanan line do post and often write for VNN. But it does seem to me from my limited experience on this forum mainly that they spend far more time, and use more vitriol, attacking people like us and even fellow WN than they do the Foxman's and the Sharon's.
Really you can never be too careful.
BTW Kevin. If you would try to learn how to use the quote tags it would maje things a little more readable. The moderators used to do this for Trisk to help him out. (He was badly injured in an attack last year).
2004-02-12 20:06 | User Profile
ââ¬ÅPresumably the level of debate has not sunk to such a depth where one gets accused of lying merely because one does not have a plethora of bibliographical citations at hand. For the record, in the pages of Chronicles, I have read harsh criticisms of capitalism from Tom Fleming, Chilton Williamson, Sam Francis and others.ââ¬Â
While did not ask for ââ¬Åplethora of bibliographical citationsââ¬Â you gave nothing to support you saying paleos reject capitalism. In short, you have no argument. I have to read many issues of Chronicles and not once have any one said in that magazine that they reject that system. They complain about the effects some aspects of capitalism (like globalism, lose of industry and Walmart) but never do they talk about fundamental problems of that system.
ââ¬ÅIts true they tend to be a little vague about spelling out what their alternative model would be, but there are only so many options in that regard.ââ¬Â
They offer no alternatives which you admit because they have none. They have none because they seek none.
ââ¬ÅInterestingly enough, while I remain somewhat vague about what neo-guildism would be, the only place I've ever (previously) read of its being advocated is in the pages of Chronicles. So perhaps V.O. (whoever that is; I'm sort of new around here) has less of an argument with the paleos than he supposes....ââ¬Â
If you read what V.O. has written on neo-guildism or any of the material he cites you can learn much about it . If you wish I will give you some cites. As to Chronicles never have I heard anyone in that magazine, or anyone other paleo source, endorse guildism. If you know other wise show me.
ââ¬ÅBuchanan clearly cares about defending White civilization, as any serious observer of his career over the last two decades is forced to admit.ââ¬Â
I have a video tape of Buchanan on American TV (Cross Fire it was called I think) and he come out and say that WWII was noble cause because it help to make Europa multi-racial. Buchanan has never once come out in favour of racial separation, had a Congoid run with him, has often condemned racism, says that blacks are fully American . His magazine attacks Dr. McDonald and had defended Zionism which shows again Buchanan is not pro-white but interested in being on TV. He may be well meaning but he is no real alternative and his opposition is false. Also I have on tape him saying that multi-racialism is fine as what matters is culture not race and all is needed is assimilation. To think that such notions are about saving your race is hopelss.
ââ¬ÅThe paleoconservative strategy and the national socialist strategy have BOTH been dismal failures in the United States, so it behooves the adherents of one not to be too criticial of adherents of the other.ââ¬Â
At least you admit paleoconservative is dismal failure yet you defend Buchanan who has all the flaws V.O. mentioned and you give no criticism of why it fails nor what to do about it. As to National Socialism, no form of it exists in your country. You have odd little collections of Hitler worshipers that seem to know nothing about the ideology but love the imagry. You have the NA which is obvious about being pro-white and anti jew but have never expressed any idea about what they want for society. It seems impossible to make Americans understand that National Socialism is far more then Germany ââ¬Ë33-ââ¬Ë45 so I will not bother to try.
ââ¬ÅBut I think it behooves all of us to assist in any pro-White efforts we find ourselves in a position to so assist and in the final analysis, the way we'll learn whether paleoconservatism or national socialism makes more sense is when one triumphs and the other becomes a rightfully honored historical footnote.ââ¬Â
As it is obvious that paleos, except the Cof CC, are not racialists but in fact attack such thinking so almost all of them are not pro-white. If something has failed for decades it is a failure and not worth support. As to supporting any pro-white group I am not so sure. I will not support drunken skinheads, people that wear funny hats and scream about ââ¬Åday of the ropeââ¬Â, I will not support satanists and insane talk of ââ¬Åsinister dialecticsââ¬Â or people that reject racial sepration or say that everyone that does not follow some releigion must die like some C.I and satanic groups say.
ââ¬ÅByrni/Barney or whoevver he is calls me a liar every time he responds to me, just because I disagree with him.ââ¬Â
Her Okie starts to copies his lapdog Tex with humour suited to spoiled children then he lies some more. I call him a liar not because he disagrees with me but hecause he has not told the truth about my dear friend V.O. He called him, and me, totalitarian which is totally not reality. He calls us nazis which is a lie, he says V.O. left because Okie was anti-Hitler which is also a lie. He say that V.O. runs some organization and ran a forum wich is also lying. Okie says he respects V.O. then condemns him in the same sentance, says he has sits back in and does nothing productive which is more gross lies. He says that V.O. says we should all be rich, Nordic supermen which is again just more clear lies.
ââ¬ÅYou're talking to a brick wall here Kevin.ââ¬Â
Translate: If you donââ¬â¢t worship Francis and Buchanan like Okie you are not worth talking to. Such a statement proves again that Okie has no interest in debate but rather just wants to mis-present what others say, lie and attack.
ââ¬ÅTriskelion and his cohorts here give lip service to this idea, but in practice it seems the limits of deviation from National Socialist dogma they will tolerate before they anathemacize someone as litle better than Foxman, like they do Buchanan, is very small.ââ¬Â
Okie canââ¬â¢t stop lying. Triskelion is a big fan of CR school, supports Portugese Integralism and Falangism, works with and elects populists, has strong ties with monarchists, has defended syndicalists of different kinds and is very active the ITP. He attacks those that mimic Hitler and rejects those that refuse to see that the spirit of ââ¬Ë33 is gone forever. What Okis means by ââ¬Ådogmaââ¬Â is any one that disagrees with Okie or that points out what is wrong with his idols Francis and Buchanan.
While V.O. has written critques of all rightist groups (even ones he likes and belongs to) Okie has never accepted any criticism of paleos but instead say that if you have serious problems with paleos you are a ââ¬Ånaziââ¬Â, ââ¬Ålinderiteââ¬Â (what it means who knows?), ââ¬Åtotalitarianââ¬Â, ââ¬Ådoctrinaireââ¬Â, ââ¬Ådogmaââ¬Â, ââ¬Ånillistââ¬Â or helping the neo-cons. I think such poor thinking is called ââ¬Åprojectionââ¬Â by people that are into psychology but in any case Okie is simply showing that he can not debate because he is dishonest and has a dull mind.
2004-02-13 04:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal]I think such poor thinking is called ââ¬Åprojectionââ¬Â by people that are into psychology but in any case Okie is simply showing that he can not debate because he is dishonest and has a dull mind.[/QUOTE] Talk about the pot calling the kettle black :lol: . That's the best example of projection I've ever seen! :clap:
2004-02-13 05:25 | User Profile
Fine example of your inablity to address anything I have said. Of course I know you can not do any better so it is expected. If you were not such a hateful coward I would pity you.
2004-02-13 05:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal]“Presumably the level of debate has not sunk to such a depth where one gets accused of lying merely because one does not have a plethora of bibliographical citations at hand. For the record, in the pages of Chronicles, I have read harsh criticisms of capitalism from Tom Fleming, Chilton Williamson, Sam Francis and others.”
While did not ask for “plethora of bibliographical citations” you gave nothing to support you saying paleos reject capitalism. In short, you have no argument. I have to read many issues of Chronicles and not once have any one said in that magazine that they reject that system. They complain about the effects some aspects of capitalism (like globalism, lose of industry and Walmart) but never do they talk about fundamental problems of that system.[/QUOTE]
Then you haven't read the right issues, as the articles are out there; I've read them. The mere fact that I didn't enter this forum with a fist full of bibliographical citations should not be cited as some sort of evidence that I am either deluded or that my word means nothing. How many issues of Chronicles have you perused in the last year? I'm guessing about as many as I've read of the Weaklings Substandard ("zero"), since people don't generally read publications they (apparently) detest. The line the crowd over at Chronicles has been taking has been growing more radical in terms of a rejection of capitalism in the last year or so, thus it hardly seems far-fetched that you might have missed it. As, apparently, you have. But they are still out there (and someone over there is advocating the same "neo-Guildism" that you are advocating). Please explain why that makes them your enemy, rather than your ally.
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal]“Its true they tend to be a little vague about spelling out what their alternative model would be, but there are only so many options in that regard.”
They offer no alternatives which you admit because they have none. They have none because they seek none.[/QUOTE]
Based on what? Naked assertion? Ideological need on your part?
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal]“Interestingly enough, while I remain somewhat vague about what neo-guildism would be, the only place I've ever (previously) read of its being advocated is in the pages of Chronicles. So perhaps V.O. (whoever that is; I'm sort of new around here) has less of an argument with the paleos than he supposes....”
If you read what V.O. has written on neo-guildism or any of the material he cites you can learn much about it . If you wish I will give you some cites. As to Chronicles never have I heard anyone in that magazine, or anyone other paleo source, endorse guildism. If you know other wise show me.[/QUOTE]
You know, I read the magazines and then I throw them out. If you're going to accuse me of lying, then please stop pussy-footing. I've heard the term "neo-Guildism" precisely ONE TIME before reading your message, and that was in the pages of Chronicles within the last year. And it was a positive reference. If you need to me to tell you what paragraph of what page of what issue that reference appeared, then just call me a liar and be done with it. If this is a subject of such intense interest for you, one might question why you don't choose to research it yourself. Neo-guildism is a term I can't even define, so not surprisingly, I didn't make a note when I read it. But I do recall which publication it was in....
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal]“Buchanan clearly cares about defending White civilization, as any serious observer of his career over the last two decades is forced to admit.”
I have a video tape of Buchanan on American TV (Cross Fire it was called I think) and he come out and say that WWII was noble cause because it help to make Europa multi-racial.[/QUOTE]
I believe you are mistaken. Please review the tape and type the precise text that Buchanan uttered. I doubt very seriously it will lend itself most readily to that interpretaton. Perhaps you made an error in translation. In any event, one of Buchanan's books, "A Republic, Not An Empire," contains his (other?) opinion that it was a mistake for the United States to enter World War II at all. I've read the book (even own a copy, although its stored at my father's house). You can do a Google search that will verify that book contains such a message, as it was a huge story upon the book's publication in 1999.
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal]Buchanan has never once come out in favour of racial separation, had a Congoid run with him, has often condemned racism, says that blacks are fully American.[/QUOTE]
Yes, well, he believes it makes sense to pursue a strategy of pursuing the preservation of America as a White nation without openly admitting that is what he is doing. That was/is probably an error, but had he been more open, its unlikely the results would have been any different; the kike media would have destroyed him utterly without regard to whether he pursued the open or the covert strategy. Which makes an interesing point; the Jews realize Buchanan is one of their greatest enemies, and yet you do not....
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal]His magazine attacks Dr. McDonald and had defended Zionism which shows again Buchanan is not pro-white but interested in being on TV.[/QUOTE]
The review of MacDonald's book struck me as largely neutral in tone (admittedly, I'd prefer it had been enthusiastic, but it was hardly an attack on the good professor) and Buchanan stopped being a Zionist as soon as the Cold War ended. He's been the most persistent critic of Zionism on the American political scene (unless you count eccentrics like Farrakhan) since 1990.
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal]He may be well meaning but he is no real alternative and his opposition is false. Also I have on tape him saying that multi-racialism is fine as what matters is culture not race and all is needed is assimilation. To think that such notions are about saving your race is hopelss.[/QUOTE]
Its obvious Buchanan doesn't believe national socialism is a viable political strategy in America. I hope he's wrong, but its difficult to entirely blame him for coming to that conclusion. Buchanan has made it very clear (such as in 1996, when he said that America would have a much easier time assimilating a million Scotsman, as oposed to a million Zulus) that he intends to work for a virtual halt to all Third World immigration, in favor of immigrants from Europe, and that he wishes to round up all of the illegal immigrants from Latin America, east Asia and elsewhere and deport them. And he wants to militarize our border with Mexico in order to prevent Mexican immigration. Maybe he's not perfect, but he's definitely good.
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal]“The paleoconservative strategy and the national socialist strategy have BOTH been dismal failures in the United States, so it behooves the adherents of one not to be too criticial of adherents of the other.”
At least you admit paleoconservative is dismal failure yet you defend Buchanan who has all the flaws V.O. mentioned and you give no criticism of why it fails nor what to do about it. As to National Socialism, no form of it exists in your country.[/QUOTE]
Not for lack of trying over the last 40-50 years or so. National socialism is a very difficult idea to put across to Americans. That's what makes it a dismal failure. Its a neat trick to blame it on the people for not embracing it, but that smacks of Bolshevists who claim that communism was a great idea, if only its ideas had more properly adhered to.
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal]You have the NA which is obvious about being pro-white and anti jew but have never expressed any idea about what they want for society.[/QUOTE]
They have some pretty extensive essays about what they want an American future to look like; I'm surprised you haven't bothered to go to their website and read them. I can give you the links if you like; I first read them in 1995 and they are, I'm almost certain, still on the site....
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal]“But I think it behooves all of us to assist in any pro-White efforts we find ourselves in a position to so assist and in the final analysis, the way we'll learn whether paleoconservatism or national socialism makes more sense is when one triumphs and the other becomes a rightfully honored historical footnote.”
As it is obvious that paleos, except the Cof CC, are not racialists but in fact attack such thinking so almost all of them are not pro-white. If something has failed for decades it is a failure and not worth support.[/QUOTE]
Then, logically, we should just give up, marry a Jewess or a Black bitch, start buying rap CDs and wearing pants that expose our buttocks to the wind, because national socialism doesn't have any more of a successful track record in America than paleoconservatism. You say national socialism doesn't exist here, but that's actually WORSE than the situation with regard to paleoconservatism, which does, at least, exist (its also patently false, as the National Alliance is arguably the world's leading national socialist organization).
In any event, the basic point I'm trying to make with these posts is that I think its counter-productive, to the point of idiocy, for pro-White, anti-Semitic patriots to waste their ammunitition on each other. Its not like we don't all live in a target rich environment, so let's go after the enemy, rather than each other!
2004-02-13 10:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Maybe you should listen to the voice of God. I don't have the patience of a priest, but maybe Walter Yannis will consent to hear your confession.[/QUOTE]
Okie: funny you should mention that.
Il Ragno did make a full confession to me. My ears are still burning.
I was scandalized! Shocked!! Appalled!!!
No wonder that guy can write so well - he sure seems to have lot of fun.
Man, I'm jealous.
Walter
2004-02-13 23:33 | User Profile
ââ¬ÅThen you haven't read the right issues, as the articles are out there; I've read them. The mere fact that I didn't enter this forum with a fist full of bibliographical citations should not be cited as some sort of evidence that I am either deluded or that my word means nothing. How many issues of Chronicles have you perused in the last year? I'm guessing about as many as I've read of the Weaklings Substandard ("zero"), since people don't generally read publications they (apparently) detest. The line the crowd over at Chronicles has been taking has been growing more radical in terms of a rejection of capitalism in the last year or so, thus it hardly seems far-fetched that you might have missed it. As, apparently, you have. But they are still out there (and someone over there is advocating the same "neo-Guildism" that you are advocating). Please explain why that makes them your enemy, rather than your ally."
I read Chronicles often because I hope to see something worth while. I have seen plenty of complaints about the effects of capitalism but never a statement saying that the system should be rejected. I have seen no statement endorsing guildism or praise for Friar Fahey, O. & J Grubiak, Arthur Penty, Roger McCain, G.D.H. Cole, William Baumol, William Morris, Mary Parker Follett, Silvio Gesell, Othmar Spann or anyone else that matter to such thinking. Same to said when looking at paleo boards and magazines. If they did mentioned neo-guildism in passing once or twice it has gone unnoticed by paleos and means something less then a real interest. That they have no alternative to capitalism does not make them my enemy but it does make them no real alterative to those that rule you.
ââ¬ÅBased on what? Naked assertion? Ideological need on your part? ââ¬Å
Based on your own comment that Chronicles has not elaborated what they want in place of capitalism combined with my own reading means plain it is to see that they have no alternative or unwilling to say what it is. Again, noone here seems able to provide a single statement from any paleo calling for a rejection of capitalism as a system and without such a desire it is logical that they would not spend any time on defining that alternate which they have not.
ââ¬ÅYou know, I read the magazines and then I throw them out. If you're going to accuse me of lying, then please stop pussy-footing. I've heard the term "neo-Guildism" precisely ONE TIME before reading your message, and that was in the pages of Chronicles within the last year. And it was a positive reference. If you need to me to tell you what paragraph of what page of what issue that reference appeared, then just call me a liar and be done with it. If this is a subject of such intense interest for you, one might question why you don't choose to research it yourself. Neo-guildism is a term I can't even define, so not surprisingly, I didn't make a note when I read it. But I do recall which publication it was in....ââ¬Â
First, I would not accuse you of being dishonest as clearly you are far better then Okie and you have said nothing that seems to have deceit. In fact, you seem well meaning which is how I take what you say. That you have heard the term neo-guildism once says to me that it is nothing that Chronicles promotes. If you can not back up what I thought was your early position in this matter that is fine and I will not assume you wrong nor confuse you with someone like Okie. But I again will point out that paleos are unhappy with the results of capitalism yet they do not reject it as a system. If you wish we could speak of corporatism or some form of syndicalism that is fine but again I must point out that paleos give such matters unattention.
ââ¬ÅI believe you are mistaken. Please review the tape and type the precise text that Buchanan uttered. I doubt very seriously it will lend itself most readily to that interpretation. Perhaps you made an error in translation. ââ¬Â
No problem although for me English is hard so I doubt I will not get everything right in translation. If you want, see the neo-confederate page ââ¬ÅWhitaker onlineââ¬Â (think that is right) and he has a article about similar statement by Buchanan on another program. Here is the text of the interview to best of English and typing -
Quote: ââ¬Åinterviewer - Now Pat, in your latest book you say that America should not have entered World War Two but rather let Stalin and Hitler fight each other to exhaustion. Is that correct? Buchanan: Yes, thatââ¬â¢s right, Iââ¬â¢d have rather seen those totalitarian regimes destroy each other without expending American lives to do it. Interviewer: But you canââ¬â¢t deny the great moral victory America achieved by helping to destroy fascism. {Buchanan starts to interrupt but is quickly cut off} The idea that America could just sit back and do nothing as Hitlerââ¬â¢s death camps murdered 6 million jews is simply unconscionable. Buchanan: Obviously I am totally opposed to Nazi totalitarianism and I am proud of the sacrifices America made to bring democracy back to Europe and destroy the scourge of racism and anti-Semitism. But also let me say that.... Interviewer: But if America never intervened Hitlerââ¬â¢s extremist notions of racial purity would have been forced upon Europe and the tolerant, democratic racial diversity that characterizes Western Europe today may never have existed....{Buchanan interrupts} if youââ¬â¢ll let me finish I wanted to...{interviewer interrupts} Are you implying that youââ¬â¢d prefer to see Hitlerââ¬â¢s grotesque notions of racial purity rather then the democracy Europe has today which in large part was a result of American post war efforts like the Marshal Plan? Buchanan: Of course not. I oppose Nazism and racism and I deeply resent your implication to the contrary. No one disputes that America has helped restore European democracy and destroy fascism and I am proud of that accomplishment. My point was ... Interviewer: Well if America stayed out of the war Europe would have never experienced the racial diversity that has strengthened democracy in post war Europe. Are claiming that Europe would have been better off without {Buchanan tries to interrupt} what I am saying is ... {interviewer stops him} wait a moment, are you, I mean, are you trying to say that it would be morally defeasible for Europe to stay the way it was in the early forties rather then be more ethnically diverse and democratic? Buchanan (frustrated sigh}: As I said before, I think that Americans can be justifiably proud about our countryââ¬â¢s roll in reconstructing Europe and crushing Hitler. But I am also concerned about the social and economic problems that massive levels of immigration has caused in America and many nations in Europe...{interviewer interrupts} Interviewer: So your saying that immigrants are not able adopt to European culture and contribute economically to modern Europe? Buchanan: No, thatââ¬â¢s not what I said, but I am concerned that immigration at itââ¬â¢s current levels is culturally problematic... {interviewer interrupts} Interviewer: Well as long immigrants assimilate and are productive economically they benefit the countries they move to so youââ¬â¢ll agree that the problem is helping them adopt to a new culture and not racial issue I hope? Buchanan: Yes, thatââ¬â¢s correct. ââ¬ÅThe question is one of assimilation and culture rather then race. [commercial break]
ââ¬ÅIn any event, one of Buchanan's books, "A Republic, Not An Empire," contains his (other?) opinion that it was a mistake for the United States to enter World War II at all. I've read the book (even own a copy, although its stored at my father's house). You can do a Google search that will verify that book contains such a message, as it was a huge story upon the book's publication in 1999.ââ¬Â
Yes I know about the controversy spoken of about that book. Yet he seems to not so solid about that issues as the interview showed. I am not surprised about him being unfirm as I once knew a libertarian in America that makes a big deal about Buchanan giving up on free trade because he thought it would help get more republicans elected to be a protectionist like Gepheart. He was very big on talking about how such a change was unprincipled and he keept sending me stuff about that all the time. I never thought much about it as Buchanan is not someone I trusted so to felt betrayed seem silly.
Originally Posted by BjarniTyrdal: Buchanan has never once come out in favour of racial separation, had a Congoid run with him, has often condemned racism, says that blacks are fully American.
ââ¬ÅYes, well, he believes it makes sense to pursue a strategy of pursuing the preservation of America as a White nation without openly admitting that is what he is doing. That was/is probably an error, but had he been more open, its unlikely the results would have been any different; the kike media would have destroyed him utterly without regard to whether he pursued the open or the covert strategy.ââ¬Â
Yes, it was wrong for Buchanan to never once in his life come out against multi-racialism. Your country is dying because of it and those that pretend other wise can not save it. I do not care why he condemns ââ¬Åracismââ¬Â and accepts liberal arguments that what matters is culture, not race or that Congoids are American. Promoting lies that kill your country makes him negative.
ââ¬ÅWhich makes an interesting point; the Jews realize Buchanan is one of their greatest enemies, and yet you do not....ââ¬Â
The jews hate the neo-con Washington Times, Hamas, Black Islam and Zionist slave W.F. Buckley as well but they are no way an ally of those that want to save the Occident. The jews have a hatred of anything Occidental so just being hated by jews does not mean they are worth while.
Originally Posted by BjarniTyrdal: His magazine attacks Dr. McDonald and had defended Zionism which shows again Buchanan is not pro-white but interested in being on TV.
ââ¬ÅThe review of MacDonald's book struck me as largely neutral in tone (admittedly, I'd prefer it had been enthusiastic, but it was hardly an attack on the good professor) and Buchanan stopped being a Zionist as soon as the Cold War ended. He's been the most persistent critic of Zionism on the American political scene (unless you count eccentrics like Farrakhan) since 1990.ââ¬Â
The book review was negative but not wildly so. It was also shallow and jew appeasing like the AmRen review. Hardly showing some sympathy for a need to address jewish control honestly. As to Zionism, his magazine defends it and he often condemns ââ¬Åanti-Semitismââ¬Â.
ââ¬ÅIts obvious Buchanan doesn't believe national socialism is a viable political strategy in America.ââ¬Â
It is obvious Buchanan has no interest in any form of racialism, has never attacked mixing of the races, does not reject capitalism and values being on TV more then principle.
ââ¬ÅI hope he's wrong, but its difficult to entirely blame him for coming to that conclusion.ââ¬Â
Given that Americans do not know what National Socialism is and no worth while racial groups of any sort exist in your country such a conclusion makes not any sense. As V.O. pointed out with zero substantial challenge paleos have gone nowhere and outside of CofCC seem to care less about race. If success is what matters paleo-cons are not a option.
ââ¬ÅBuchanan has made it very clear (such as in 1996, when he said that America would have a much easier time assimilating a million Scotsman, as opposed to a million Zulus) that he intends to work for a virtual halt to all Third World immigration, in favor of immigrants from Europe, and that he wishes to round up all of the illegal immigrants from Latin America, east Asia and elsewhere and deport them. And he wants to militarize our border with Mexico in order to prevent Mexican immigration. Maybe he's not perfect, but he's definitely good.ââ¬Â
Well he also has said many times that blacks are as American as you, that racism is ââ¬Åevilââ¬Â, that ââ¬Åanti-Semitism ââ¬Å is wrong, that culture is what matters not race. While he admits that ââ¬ÅAmerica would have a much easier time assimilating a million Scotsman, as opposed to a million Zulusââ¬Â he never says the obvious that assimilation has not and can not work because race matters. Assuming he does want to stop immigration (and he has never said he wants to end non white immigration but just reduce it) he is a political failure never elected to anything or ever started any kind of organization that stands for Occidental Americans but he publishes a magazine that has nothing to offer while defending Zionism. If by some miracle he was elected president, had a Congress that supported him and he did end immigration the fact is that your country will still become part of third world within a couple of generations because he does not support separation.
Quote: Originally Posted by BjarniTyrdal ââ¬ÅThe paleoconservative strategy and the national socialist strategy have BOTH been dismal failures in the United States, so it behooves the adherents of one not to be too critical of adherents of the other.ââ¬Â
At least you admit paleoconservative is dismal failure yet you defend Buchanan who has all the flaws V.O. mentioned and you give no criticism of why it fails nor what to do about it. As to National Socialism, no form of it exists in your country.
ââ¬ÅNot for lack of trying over the last 40-50 years or so.ââ¬Â
The article that started all of this states very plainly why they fail yet the truth that no one here can face is the reasons why so they have gotten what they deserve.
ââ¬ÅNational socialism is a very difficult idea to put across to Americans. That's what makes it a dismal failure.ââ¬Â
Many kinds of positive, nature affirming folkish ideologies exist but none are considered in the states. Instead, all you have are strange compound groups filled with freaks and no real ideology and no strategy. It is obvious that such groups will go nowhere and it is also obvious that Americans that are racial have zero desire to change. They too get what they deserve.
ââ¬Å Itââ¬â¢s a neat trick to blame it on the people for not embracing it, but that smacks of Bolshevists who claim that communism was a great idea, if only its ideas had more properly adhered to.ââ¬Â
No said any such thing. Read the article about racial groups before you comment on it. What the article did is to talk of how a lack of an ideological base has attracted very marginal types to racist groups which makes them ineffective.
Quote: Originally Posted by BjarniTyrdal You have the NA which is obvious about being pro-white and anti jew but have never expressed any idea about what they want for society.
ââ¬ÅThey have some pretty extensive essays about what they want an American future to look like; I'm surprised you haven't bothered to go to their website and read them. I can give you the links if you like; I first read them in 1995 and they are, I'm almost certain, still on the site....ââ¬Â
I think you must be joking because I can see no other reason for what you say. I read everything that comes out of the NA and no such vision is articulated. If you get around to reading the V.O. article youââ¬â¢s note truth when he say that: ââ¬ÅWe have absolutely to idea what sort of economics it would have, how society would be ordered nor what sort of educational and legal philosophy would be instated. Would an NA regime seek to preserve national sovereignty or expand regional independence and the vast diversity of the cultural expression within Occidental humanity? Would it be imperialistic within or outside of Occidental nations? These are rather basic questions that most serious people would want to know before considering a vilified cause yet the NA never addresses those issues. Those sorts of basic, crucial issues have been addressed by the likes of De'at, the Marquis De La Tour Du Pin, Bacconier, D'Annunzio, Mosley, Spann and others and the movements they were associated with had far more success then the NA has had in far less time then the NA has existed.ââ¬Â Dr. Peirce never wrote anything about the set up of a NA state, who will run it, what the legal system would be, how health care would be controlled, how the media would be run, ecological policy, how will racial separation happen, what happens to the constitution and much more. Basically, what he did was say what is wrong with the establishment but not what will replace it. That is not enough.
Quote: Originally Posted by BjarniTyrdal ââ¬ÅBut I think it behooves all of us to assist in any pro-White efforts we find ourselves in a position to so assist and in the final analysis, the way we'll learn whether paleoconservatism or national socialism makes more sense is when one triumphs and the other becomes a rightfully honored historical footnote.ââ¬Â
As it is obvious that paleos, except the Cof CC, are not racialists but in fact attack such thinking so almost all of them are not pro-white. If something has failed for decades it is a failure and not worth support.
ââ¬ÅThen, logically, we should just give up, marry a Jewess or a Black bitch, start buying rap CDs and wearing pants that expose our buttocks to the wind, because national socialism doesn't have any more of a successful track record in America than paleoconservatism. You say national socialism doesn't exist here, but that's actually WORSE than the situation with regard to paleoconservatism, which does, at least, exist (its also patently false, as the National Alliance is arguably the world's leading national socialist organization).ââ¬Â
Your logic is very odd in deed. I want to save the Occident and when a movement refuses to say it wants racial separation, has no solutions, no self criticism and does the same failed things for a life time (like the paleos have) my logic says it has not worked so lets try something else. Again, many sorts of folkish racialism are to be found but none in America. The NA has no substance as the article say and no strategy worth mentioning and no description of a NS vision of any kind for a society except that it will be white (which they never defined unlike Legion Europa). As to it being the worldââ¬â¢s leading anything that is too stupid to be taken seriously. In Russia, Hungary, Poland and several Baltic countries a great many organizations promote a genuine folkish alternative that are far larger then every racial and paleo con group in America combined. Those groups are not Hitler worshipers talking about ââ¬Åday of the ropeââ¬Â but real parties electing people that are anti-jew and Eurocentric. A few months back in Sweden a NS rally happened that was four times larger then anything the NA put together at itââ¬â¢s height and Sweden has one of the weakest nationalist scenes in Europa. The racial Fascist Forza Nuovo has a weekly paper that each issue is read by 20,000 while the very racial and pro-syndicalist Lega Nord is in parliament as a governing partner calling for the navy to sink ships with aliens and expel non whites. The NA never elected anyone to anything or even tried. I could list more way you are wrong but it is too obvious to bother.
ââ¬ÅIn any event, the basic point I'm trying to make with these posts is that I think its counter-productive, to the point of idiocy, for pro-White, anti-Semitic patriots to waste their ammunitition on each other. Its not like we don't all live in a target rich environment, so let's go after the enemy, rather than each other!ââ¬Â
Almost all paleos are not racialists and in fact attack them. If you think they are your allies you are wrong and fooling yourself. I know Americans want to be told that what they are doing is just fine but I am more interested in the truth no matter if it offends. Things have gone on to long to pretend that the failure of paleos and ââ¬Åwhite powerââ¬Â is something to defend rather then be brutal honest. The hysteria shown by some (not you) in this thread is proof that no real objections exist to what the article says.
2004-02-14 07:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE]BjarniTyrdal:While did not ask for ââ¬Åplethora of bibliographical citationsââ¬Â you gave nothing to support you saying paleos reject capitalism."[/QUOTE]
Catholics are anti-capitalism, at least they're supposed to be. Distributivism is a profoundly Catholic thing, and it arose in direct response to the threat both socialism and capitalism pose to bedrock human social institutions such as private property.
Some of the men you mention are Catholics (PJB, and I believe also Fleming), and so really it goes without saying that they're familiar with Distributivism, probably agree with its basic principles, and harbour deep suspicions of capitalism.
I've moved beyond the suspicion stage, and have adopted a full-blown Third Position stance. PJB hasn't done so yet, at least not openly.
Walter
2004-02-14 08:29 | User Profile
Hello Mr. Yanis,
I think you are a decent and fine man based upon what you write. However, while traditionally Catholics have oppossed capitalism from a conservative stand point you can not be too general about modern Catholics as plenty are leftist, many agnostic and outside of nationalist groups very few openly support the great legacy of the Church in economics.
As to Buchanan I will point out that never has he endorsed Distributivism although I wish he would. Flemming will from time time say something nice about Chesterton/Belloc writing on ethics or fiction but has never displayed any deep understanding of what they had as economic vision. Chronicals has never come out to say that they endorse Distributivism but are as you suggest, only suspicous of capitalism. They complain about it's effects but never look do they to Charles Maurras or Leon Deat. Never speak do they of the Organicism of La Tour Du Pin or Spann. Frank I must say that they are scared to embrace genuine, folkish, Catholic National Revolt while such are big inspirations to Eurocentrics of all and no religion beleifs as what they promote is socially good no matter what you may think of religion.
I know of no paleo active in Ameican public that will endorse such a vision although it is very good to note that fine men like your self do at least know of such things. I have a nice collection of such material and promote it my self although I am not as hostile to corporatism as V.O. is. If you like, I am happy to exchange economic information with you off forum.
Thank you for your input and I hope you that you can promote genuine Organicism among Ameican Catholics.
Best regards, Bjarni
2004-02-14 08:42 | User Profile
Bjarni:
Thank you for your very kind words.
I like this talk of Nationalist Catholic Revolt. Ooooo, that feels good! Say it again!!!!
But alas, you're right that we Third Positionists are but a tiny minority, despite the fact that official Catholic social teaching is predicated on nationalism, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property.
Cheers,
Walter
2004-02-14 22:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal]“They have some pretty extensive essays about what they want an American future to look like; I'm surprised you haven't bothered to go to their website and read them. I can give you the links if you like; I first read them in 1995 and they are, I'm almost certain, still on the site....”
I think you must be joking because I can see no other reason for what you say. I read everything that comes out of the NA and no such vision is articulated. If you get around to reading the V.O. article you’s note truth when he say that: “We have absolutely to idea what sort of economics it would have, how society would be ordered nor what sort of educational and legal philosophy would be instated. Would an NA regime seek to preserve national sovereignty or expand regional independence and the vast diversity of the cultural expression within Occidental humanity? Would it be imperialistic within or outside of Occidental nations? These are rather basic questions that most serious people would want to know before considering a vilified cause yet the NA never addresses those issues.[/QUOTE]
Your entire post necessitates a longer reply than I am in a position to provide presently (it is St. Valentine's Day, after all; my wife and I do have some plans for today that do not involve my being on the computer), however I felt I simply had to demonstrate the partial falsity of your remarks above (partial in that while many details are addressed, some of the ones you indicate are not). However, it seems that since the death of Dr. Pierce, the "Why the National Alliance?," essays have been deleted from the website. That's unfortunate. Like I said, I read them in 1995 and referred back to them numerous times over the course of the next five years. They were clearly written by Dr. Pierce (one could detect his style in them) and have, I suspect, been removed because their tone was (wrongly) judged to be a bit too intellectual for prospective members (on the contrary, it was reading those essays in 1995 that inspired me to join the National Alliance the following year). However, I'm pretty sure I have a paper copy of them around the house and could send them to you, if you'd like to e-mail me with a postal address (after I've actually found them, of course). I must reiterate, however, that I am disappointed those fine and fairly extensive essays, which were there until the death of Dr. Pierce (I know he wouldn't have sanctioned the removal of those essays by simple virtue of the fact he wouldn't have regarded anything as being wrong with them; its a shame the new crowd apparently does). I will probably contact the National Office and suggest they be put back up.
2004-02-15 06:41 | User Profile
Mr. Okeeffe,
I have not heard of Valentine's Day so what yous speak of is confusing.
As to the NA I am not as familiar with them as are others I know. I do have a comrade that collects most of the material they made (Attack, National, Vanguard, Free Speach, radio/internet braodcasts etc.) for a racialist library open to the public so I have seen a lot of what they say. Most will agree that some of what Dr. Pierce said was very good in talking about what is wrong with multi-racialism and need for some sort of "white" (the NA never looked into race as well as the American group Legion Europa) which is vital and they are to be comended for it. From time to time I helped get NA stuff translated and broadcast myself so I do want want to be seen as totally critical. I am rather mad about having a 1600 Kr. order to the Vanguard books vanish but in the end I got all the stuff I wnated else where so it's no big lose.
Unforutately, nothing you can buy or read at the NA covers the things I talk about and Dr. Pierce wrote just novels and nothing serious so I doubt it is possible to get any real idea what he wanted. If some essay addresses some of the things partly that is good but that is still no substitute. V.O. is having a French comrade translate Du Pin's "Aphorisisms" which covers most ideological matters in about 35 pages with great clearity but has no real meta-politics. If someone at the NA could have done likewise it should have been promoted. Looking at NA boards and NA members online it seems that they also don't know about the matters I ask but clearly are not troubled by such.
I will ask if the essay you speak of is at the library I mentioned.
Best regards,
Bjarni
2004-02-15 22:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal]Mr. Okeeffe,
I have not heard of Valentine's Day so what yous speak of is confusing.[/QUOTE]
Hmmm, its a Catholic feasting day (Feb. 14th) that has been turned into some sort of unofficial national holiday here in the United States. Its supposed to be a celebration of romantic love, based on an early Catholic priest, named Valentine, who defied an order of of the Roman Emperor and married young couples in secret ceremonies (I believe that's the story behind it, anyway). Maybe its only celebrated here in America (as a way to generate funds for the candy, flowers and greeting cards industry, no doubt) or perhaps you've simply never heard of it because you live in a Protestant or Orthodox country? Can any European out there from the British Isles or some Catholic country report whether St. Valentine's Day is celebrated in your homeland? Thanks.
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal]I will ask if the essay you speak of is at the library I mentioned.[/QUOTE]
I may not have gotten the name correct but unless I'm mistaken, I do recall where the essays are still printed; as a part of our prospective membership packet. In any event, if you find a series of essays, one of which is about educational policy in a post-revolutionary America, then you'll presumaly have found them.
2004-02-15 22:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE]...VO brings up the very important point that Paleoconservatives like Francis and Williamson are willing to criticize aspects of Laissez-Faire Capitalism without articulating a concrete program as an alternative. This indeed is a serious failure on their part..[/QUOTE]
Francis at least has advanced a kind of radical devolution of Federal power, as have many of the Paleos. To my mind this is very much a concrete program but it rests on a negation hence is not regarded as such.
Some of us share this passion for decentralization so much that I can see a sort of "paleo-umbrella" alliance based on this alone. It would appeal to lots of us who might blanch at some of the more retrograde tendencies of the Chronicles crowd.
2004-02-15 23:53 | User Profile
Wrong it is to say that paleos are the enemy as certainly many are well meaning and not worth the contempt some here have displayed to those that make reasoned critiques and are honest about why they go nowhere and never have. I will say that while I know NR and NS people that read and respect Kirk, Weaver, Burnham and Francis and find utility with them never seen has been any paleo group or magazine publically saying positive things about any NR or NS theory/person/group. No, paleos are not the enemies of those that care about the Occident but they are no alternative to the current order either.
Francis is very good for saying why multi-racialism is bad and that is very worth while. After seeing that he rejects sepratism and has no economic alternative nor defined a vision for Organicism his use is clearly very limited and unforutately, no paleo seems able/willing to address these things Francis has not. That is not to be an attack on Francis as everyone has limits and rolls they do well at. It is troubling that paleos are basically the way the article says and that no signs exist of that ever changing. Paleos seem to be the American middle class equivement of Boulangist theorists and follow a simelar path as a result.
As to decentralism that is good because that is a part of Organicism (the rest of which paleos ignore unfortunately) but all he seems to want is more federalism. The present order won't let that occur and he has not thought about the meta-politics of capitalism and why the constitution fails so he limits himself to hoping of bringing back the 10th amendment and the decentralization of the old republic. Basically what shows is that his notions of decentralization are perfectly in accordance with V.O.'s description of paleo thinking. While I have some criticism of the Cercle Proudhon paleos can get much from what they say about decentralization as I and many others did.
2004-02-16 02:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal] Francis... has not thought about the meta-politics of capitalism and why the constitution fails so he limits himself to hoping of bringing back the 10th amendment and the decentralization of the old republic.[/QUOTE]
This isn't completely correct. Francis has written that the Old Republic was the political expression of social and economic factors that no longer exist, and so it can't be revived. However, it is true that he doesn't offer much of a program for what the Right should do now, besides appealing to MARS (Middle American Radicals).
In reference to the matter that Walter Yannis brought up, of the (traditional)Catholic position on politics and the economy, I would recommend the monthly CULTURE WARS, edited by E. Michael Jones. They do have a website, but it doesn't have their recent articles.
2004-02-16 06:16 | User Profile
"This isn't completely correct. Francis has written that the Old Republic was the political expression of social and economic factors that no longer exist, and so it can't be revived. However, it is true that he doesn't offer much of a program for what the Right should do now, besides appealing to MARS (Middle American Radicals)."
No, but is nearly so. Francis say that the constitution has not failed and that the Old Republic is what too strive for. Admiting the obvious that it was the " the political expression of social and economic factors that no longer exist, and so it can't be revived" simply show him to be not consistant. He has no alternative because he is like all paleos in that he has no model other then the institutionalism of the Old Republic.
CULTURE WARS is nice but like all paleos they have no alternative vision and no basic criticism of the instutions of the old republic and no strategy for doing something about the decline of the Occident. Also note that they have never dered to support a brave Catholic like De'at so I see no reason to have hope for them.
2004-02-16 07:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Regarding whether there is much to criticize in the statements and writings of Buchanan, Francis, and the Chronicles crowd, there certainly is. Buchanan's failings have been criticized ad nauseum, while VO brings up the very important point that Paleoconservatives like Francis and Williamson are willing to criticize aspects of Laissez-Faire Capitalism without articulating a concrete program as an alternative. This indeed is a serious failure on their part, and one that needs to be addressed if they expect their way to be considered a viable alternative to either the status quo (liberalism and neoconservatism) or various leftist ideologies. [/QUOTE]
You raise an interesting point. PJB, as I've pointed out above, is a Catholic, and I believe that Fleming is, too. So, in Distributivism they have a fully worked out alternative to capitalism that's been proven effective (the Mondragon cooperatives) and fully in keeping with Catholic principles.
So why are they so shy about discussing Distributivism?
I don't get it.
Walter
2004-02-16 08:29 | User Profile
"So why are they so shy about discussing Distributivism?"
Simple. They don't want an alternative to capitalism and embracing real change makes them unable to appear less "respectable" to the establishment they say they hate. Beside, it is doubtful that very many paleos have any real understanding of conservative (not classical liberal/libertarian) economics and don't want any. Same thing with multi-racialism. They don't like the effects but almost none call for seperation or are willing to offend jewry. As a result, they do not know or care about what Organicism means and would reject it if they did because that would conflict with "free market", "negative rights" and unreal notions of individualist dogma.
2004-02-16 17:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]You raise an interesting point. PJB, as I've pointed out above, is a Catholic, and I believe that Fleming is, too. So, in Distributivism they have a fully worked out alternative to capitalism that's been proven effective (the Mondragon cooperatives) and fully in keeping with Catholic principles.
So why are they so shy about discussing Distributivism?
I don't get it.
Walter[/QUOTE]:lol:. People think Chronicles is too estoric as it is. Getting into discussions of an antiquated 19th century doctrine with a name like distributivism I'm sure is really going to help them with who many people in the world? Probably 2 - the number of its boosters on this forum.
It sure isn't going to help them with anyone remotely sympathetic to the Franco/Linder/VNN types.
Start up your own distributivism mag Walter - see how many subscriptions you get.
2004-02-16 17:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Returning to the subject of VO's essay, there are two issues involved here, and I believe that the two sides here are confusing one another's positions.
And I'm not sure exactly how you are not confusing things yourself. The devil is in the details, as a scientist you should now this. Anyone can speculate without reference to the evidence. The evidence, my friend.
Regarding whether there is much to criticize in the statements and writings of Buchanan, Francis, and the Chronicles crowd, there certainly is. Like you note, no one ever said there wasn't. The question is if they are to be rejected out of hand. Buchanan's failings have been criticized ad nauseum, while VO brings up the very important point that Paleoconservatives like Francis and Williamson are willing to criticize aspects of Laissez-Faire Capitalism without articulating a concrete program as an alternative. This indeed is a serious failure on their part, and one that needs to be addressed if they expect their way to be considered a viable alternative to either the status quo (liberalism and neoconservatism) or various leftist ideologies.
Give me a break. V.O. and co IMO are just nitpicking. They know there's no point in doing this right now, when paleoism is so small anyway. The only one going to make use of such a program are their enemies.
IMO, this is a much more important failure on the part of paleos than not "naming the Jew" enough, Uh-hum, you and about two other people in this world, both on this forum.
The other question of course, is whether WN's are supposed to regard Buchanan and paleos as "enemies." This is clearly what the VNN crowd would want us to believe, i.e. "if you ain't with us, you're against us, therefore Sam Francis = Abe Foxman and Pat Buchanan = William Kristol." However, I don't see this line of idiocy at all coming from the ranks of Ostergard and his friends at all. He simply regards paleoconservatives as what they are relative to NS and racialism - lukewarm allies.
Now really? Do you have any hard evidence at all to support your position, or are you just conjecturing? I think you're confusing the V.O. you imagine existed with the V.O. we actually discovered. I couldn't find a single statement of his where he would admit that Buchanan was not the enemy. In fact he obstentatiously and implacably continued to maintain the Buchanan was the enemy, with an obstinency that would do any VNNer proud.
So both sides are tilting at windmills. The paleos seem to think that all NS critics of paleoconservatism are of the VNN "Francis=Foxman" persuasion,
Like I say, find one that isn't. Or your the one tilting at windmills, yours (and to some extent Vitebe's) "moderate" NSer.
One doesn't exist in the real world. It is one of the windmills you and other would be "reconciliators" are chasing.
while Ostergard's defenders seem to think that people sympathetic to paleoconservatism think that individual paleos and their statements are above criticism. That may be true of certain individuals here, but it isn't true of either camp overall.[/QUOTE]
?
2004-02-16 19:44 | User Profile
I believe he's referring to you there, Okie.
2004-02-16 19:47 | User Profile
LOL
2004-02-16 21:16 | User Profile
ââ¬ÅPeople think Chronicles is too estoric as it is. Getting into discussions of an antiquated 19th century doctrine with a name like distributivism I'm sure is really going to help them with who many people in the world? Probably 2 - the number of its boosters on this forum.
It sure isn't going to help them with anyone remotely sympathetic to the Franco/Linder/VNN types. Start up your own distributivism mag Walter - see how many subscriptions you get.ââ¬Â
Okie ignores the argument advanced the first post and the fact that Distributalism has a real world track record of success right now and recent past. Funny how centuries of Christian economic and social thought are viewed as antiquated by a supposed conservative but when one has no ideas like Okie it is easier to dismiss alternatives as ââ¬Åobscureââ¬Â or ââ¬Åantiquatedââ¬Â rather then address them. Okie provides us with a fine example of the fallacies of arguement from age (ex. distributalism is old and not realvent as a result) and the band wagon fallacy (ex. if Mr. Yannis starts a distribualist magazine it will not be popular so distributalism is not worth consideration)
ââ¬ÅGive me a break. V.O. and co IMO are just nitpicking. They know there's no point in doing this right now, when paleoism is so small anyway. The only one going to make use of such a program are their enemies.ââ¬Â
Translation: Okie has no sensible response to any criticism of his paleo idols so he say that to state their short comings is ââ¬Ånitpickingââ¬Â because paleos are so small in number. If they are to small to give criticism to they are too small to do anything which seems to say they have nothing to offer. If paleos are so trivial as to be not worth criticizing then that is as strong a statement of their failure as can be made.
ââ¬ÅUh-hum, you and about two other people in this world, both on this forum.ââ¬Â
Perfect example of ââ¬Åband wagon fallacyââ¬Â and ââ¬Åfallacy of small numbersââ¬Â in that Okie ignores arguments advanced and simply say that as most of this forumââ¬â¢s small and declining readers supposedly hold some opinion that differs from V.O., myself or Anti-Yuppie the positions they hold are less meaningful. Without any real chalenge to the poverty of paleo meta-political and economic/social thought forwarded by V.O.it seem Okie has no other alternative then such hollow arguements.
"Now really? Do you have any hard evidence at all to support your position, or are you just ââ¬Åconjecturing? I think you're confusing the V.O. you imagine existed with the V.O. we actually discovered.ââ¬Â
I note that Okie can not find a statement where anyone say "Francis = Abe Foxman and Pat Buchanan = William Kristolââ¬Â let alone be able to respond well to crticisms of paleos as no real alternative so he repeats the Linder=V.O. thing Ad Nauseam. Okie continues with his long standing policy of lying and misrepresenting what those that do not agree with him with the Ad Hominem attack seen in the ââ¬Ådiscoveredââ¬Â V.O. comment.
ââ¬ÅI couldn't find a single statement of his where he would admit that Buchanan was not the enemy. In fact he obstentatiously and implacably continued to maintain the Buchanan was the enemy, with an obstinency that would do any VNNer proud.ââ¬Â
Here Okie uses a reductive fallacy. Certainly V.O. has stated that Buchanan is a political failure, that his ideology has many problems that make him not an alternative for those that want to save what is left of Occidental America and has said that he gives up principle for establishment acceptance. That is not the same as saying he is like Foxman or that he is the enemy. Of course given Okieââ¬â¢s hysterical attacks on V.O. none more can be hoped for. He ends with a fallacy of false equivalency by saying that because VNN and V.O. both reject Buchanan they are the same while ignoring that arguments of both are different as are styles and that V.O. has many criticisms of VNN as well. By mischaracterizing V.O. as being like Linder he bringing up his favorite strawman and bifurcation fallacy. When one sees him accusing V.O. of being a nihilist/neo-con/communist/Linderite etc and repeating the baseless claim that if you donââ¬â¢t accept thinking your de facto helping the neo-cons it is clear that honesty and logic are foreign to him.
2004-02-17 18:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal] I note that Okie can not find a statement where anyone say "Francis = Abe Foxman and Pat Buchanan = William Kristolââ¬Â let alone be able to respond well to crticisms of paleos as no real alternative so he repeats the Linder=V.O. thing Ad Nauseam. Okie continues with his long standing policy of lying and misrepresenting what those that do not agree with him with the Ad Hominem attack seen in the ââ¬Ådiscoveredââ¬Â V.O. comment. [/QUOTE] That was AntiYuppie's remark, not mine. Direct your comments to him.
2004-02-17 18:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal] I note that Okie can not find a statement where anyone say "Francis = Abe Foxman and Pat Buchanan = William Kristolââ¬Â let alone be able to respond well to crticisms of paleos as no real alternative so he repeats the Linder=V.O. thing Ad Nauseam. Okie continues with his long standing policy of lying and misrepresenting what those that do not agree with him with the Ad Hominem attack seen in the ââ¬Ådiscoveredââ¬Â V.O. comment. [/QUOTE] That was AntiYuppie's remark, not mine. Direct your comments to him.
2004-02-17 18:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]LOL[/QUOTE]
Ha Ha. Although if I was a Swede with his brains knocked out I'd whine that you are liars and that "honesty and logic are foreign to you".
2004-02-17 20:59 | User Profile
"Ha Ha. Although if I was a Swede with his brains knocked out I'd whine that you are liars and that "honesty and logic are foreign to you"."
I do not think any Swedes are here but your inablity to reasonably challenge anything said by anyone that disagrees with you shows that it is you lacking brains. Thanks for proving again that you are too pathetic and dim to be worth hating.
"That was AntiYuppie's remark, not mine. Direct your comments to him."
You continually equate V.O.'s rejection of Buchanan as being VNN like which is wrong and I have called you on it. You also continue your long standing policy of lying about and misrepresenting those that do not agree with you which the Ad Hominem attack seen in the ââ¬Ådiscoveredââ¬Â V.O. statement shows. So my comment fits your mindlessness perfectly. Thanks for making it so easy to correctly find that you are unable to debate logically and that you can't honestly present a case case for yourself.
2004-02-18 03:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]I believe that what I said was that while the VNN crowd insists that Francis and Buchanan should be treated as enemies in the same category as Kristol and Foxman, And that's what I said you said
Vibeke Ostergard has never said anything of the sort. Ostergard never said that paleos were enemies, only that they were ineffectual.
I'm not sure he ever said that either, in a blanket way. But he sure has a hard spot for Buchanan, the only paleo leader that has ever really achieved a mass, if fickle, following.
In other words, I don't see why you constantly equate VO with Linder when the two don't say anything remotely similar to one another.
You would see if you'd look at the threads I was talking about. More is involved than just literary analysis.
2004-02-18 03:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE][QUOTE]Quote: In other words, I don't see why you constantly equate VO with Linder when the two don't say anything remotely similar to one another.[/QUOTE]
You would see if you'd look at the threads I was talking about. More is involved than just literary analysis.[/QUOTE]
Not only don't they say anything remotely similar to one another, they're not [I]trying [/I] to. One is a baggy-pants sledgehammer social satirist who's often his own worst enemy, the other is a donnish, too-dry-by-half critic/analyst of right-wing methodologies with an attachment to a particular pet theory (neo-guildism). To see any but the vaguest similarities between the two is like comparing apples and flashlights.
2004-02-18 04:43 | User Profile
"the other is a donnish, too-dry-by-half critic/analyst of right-wing methodologies with an attachment to a particular pet theory (neo-guildism)."
Certainly I do not agree with V.O. in some respects but I think you are overly critical. What America has no shortage of are racial writers of great little quips that have a good fan base and that sort of thing has a purpose although I am more negative about VNN as a utlity for real racialism then VO is. It is true that what VO writes is not for populism but for serious activists and those that care about ideology who are in very short supply indeed. Given that a great many American racial types agree that the American "movement" has done damn little it seems not unreasable that someone should avoid the cleaver quips and "spintros" and deal with the substance of what went wrong, what is needed and how to do it.
As to neo-guildism I and VO are very passionate about as it seems a viable solution to the problems many wish to ignore. But the truth is that V.O. and most he works with will endorse any traditionalistic alternative to capitalism (ex. differing sorts of corporatism, distributivism & syndicalism) and even work with capitalists if they other wise are basically sound ideologically and somewhat effective. Fact is, anyone that too ridgid about traditionalist dotrines are as doomed as those surrender core principle for electoral gain.
While V.O. is keen on theory of others (he is not an original theorist) he is first of all a real activist that tries, but not always accomplishes, what he promotes. When his American critics do more of what he has done as shown here: [url]http://wsd.matriots.com/trisk/index.html[/url] they will stand on firmer ground.
2004-02-18 05:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE]While V.O. is keen on theory of others (he is not an original theorist) he is first of all a real activist that tries...[/QUOTE]
I never claimed he wasn't, only that he was being compared to otherswho are non-comparable, and that he was being taken to task here for things he's never written.
To wit:
[I]The VNN crowd want us to believe, i.e. "if you ain't with us, you're against us, therefore Sam Francis = Abe Foxman and Pat Buchanan = William Kristol." However, I don't see this line of idiocy at all coming from the ranks of Ostergard and his friends at all. He simply regards paleoconservatives as what they are relative to NS and racialism - lukewarm allies. [/I]
[B]Now really? Do you have any hard evidence at all to support your position, or are you just conjecturing? I think you're confusing the V.O. you imagine existed with the V.O. we actually discovered. I couldn't find a single statement of his where he would admit that Buchanan was not the enemy. In fact he obstentatiously and implacably continued to maintain the Buchanan was the enemy, with an obstinency that would do any VNNer proud.[/B]
Accusing someone of conjecture and then indulging in a bit of it himself. Trisk has never called Buchanan an enemy, but - like Okie says - he's never said he [I]wasn't [/I] the enemy. And to think Okie calls other people "Alan Dershowitz" after that bit of evidentiary legerdemain worthy of Descartes (were he a personal-injury shyster): [I]I never said I wasn't, therefore I am[/I].
2004-02-18 07:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Not only don't they say anything remotely similar to one another, they're not [I]trying [/I] to. One is a baggy-pants sledgehammer social satirist who's often his own worst enemy, the other is a donnish, too-dry-by-half critic/analyst of right-wing methodologies with an attachment to a particular pet theory (neo-guildism). To see any but the vaguest similarities between the two is like comparing apples and flashlights.[/QUOTE]No doubt their literary style is greatly different. As I said, that's not the point.
This thread would probably not be necessary if people were willing and able to read what had been written before.
If you disagree with my analysis of Trisk, go back to the next-to-last thread where he discussed Buchanan.
2004-02-18 07:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal][quote=Il Ragno]the other is a donnish, too-dry-by-half critic/analyst of right-wing methodologies with an attachment to a particular pet theory (neo-guildism).
Certainly I do not agree with V.O. in some respects but I think you are overly critical.[/QUOTE] :lol: Careful Raggy. With a few more comments like this you also will end up on the NS "enemies of the people" list. ;) God knows (even if Odin doesn't) it doesn't take more than that.
2004-02-18 07:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal][quote=Il Ragno]the other is a donnish, too-dry-by-half critic/analyst of right-wing methodologies with an attachment to a particular pet theory (neo-guildism).
Certainly I do not agree with V.O. in some respects but I think you are overly critical.[/QUOTE] :lol: Careful Raggy. With a few more comments like this you also will end up on the NS "enemies of the people" list. ;) God knows (even if Odin doesn't) it doesn't take more than that.
2004-02-18 08:02 | User Profile
Il Ragno, I understand your point that you re-stated in your last post and agree. I was not implying that you are in someway like Okie as you clearly seem to be offering honest opinion. It does still seem to me that the comment I quoted was not correct for the reason I stated however.
"No doubt their literary style is greatly different. As I said, that's not the point."
You have often attempted to falsely portray V.O. as a Linderite in terms of the substance of what he says and many people have called you on it. Your qualification does not change that and your inablity to offer a meaningful comment about any point raised in the article that started all of this is unchanged as well.
"Careful Raggy. With a few more comments like this you also will end up on the NS "enemies of the people" list. ;) God knows (even if Odin doesn't) it doesn't take more than that."
I see no reason to view Il Ragno as an enemy of anything I promote. You on the other hand are my enemy because you have demonstrated a great many times that you dishonestly attack a close comrade I owe much to.
I see that the article that started this thread has gotten no serious consideration from the paleos here and it is clear that will not change. Given the bitter deceit and hateful comments directed at V.O. and myself from Okie with the support/silence of a couple of other paleos it is obvious that no meaningful response to the issues raised can come from those that the article was inteneded at this forum. Such being so, I will spare the paleos here the pain of reminding them of that which they will not/can not consider. Of course more abuse will come from the dim whitted spite Okie but responding is pointless as his poverty is bright as the midday sun. Other topics here may be useful so that is where I will be.
2004-02-18 11:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal]I do not think any Swedes are here but your inablity to reasonably challenge anything said by anyone that disagrees with you shows that it is you lacking brains.[/QUOTE] You are Scandinavian aren't you? I'd always heard then that if you have any brains you must be a Swede. At least that's what the Swedes say, and damned if you go further to proving them right than anyone I ever met.
2004-02-18 16:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]To see any but the vaguest similarities between the two is like comparing apples and flashlights.[/QUOTE]
Not really, IR. Once again, it's their frame of mind -- nazi totalitarianism that will ultimately brook no dissent or disagreement and is completely closed to anything outside itself. If you can't see it or understand what Okie and I are saying from the previous exchanges we've had with trisk then let's just let it go. No sense arguing like a jew about it.
For the love of all that is holy and good, let's please stop encouraging trisk here with more and more comments.
2004-02-18 17:21 | User Profile
Pretty pathetic really. Tex has no arguement so he hopes that if he using the term nazi totalitarian he can cut of any attempt at debate. In other words he "argues like a jew". That's what people do when they have a position they can't defend. Triskelion has been gone from this board (along with 2 out of 3 readers) for months yet Tex persists in wrongly saying I am him just showing how little he has of substance to say about anything.
2004-02-18 17:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]let's please stop encouraging trisk here with more and more comments.[/QUOTE]
Is Bjarni trisk?
2004-02-18 18:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Really now. If you could tolerate the inanities of rban ("Hindu Supremacy") for over two years, to say nothing of some other buffoons who have passed through here but thankfully had the good sense to leave (Tommy Rennick, Raina, godlesscapitalist, sun tzu, etc), I really don't understand why Triskelion gets you and Okie so worked up.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't work me up at all, AY. I just consider it inconsequential. In the wake of the unprovoked Polinco attacks on OD, I extended a welcome to trisk and even gave him a forum to moderate and direct as he saw fit. The bottom line is that it wasn't Okie or myself who posted a long, rambling opus and quit the board in a huff and tizzy.
2004-02-18 18:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]I really don't understand why Triskelion gets you and Okie so worked up.[/QUOTE]Now with all due respect, who are the one's getting all worked up, defending their side like an infallible god, or pouring out bile and anathema's on anyone who disbelieves in the infallible V.O.?
For trying to get Trisk to suggest Buchanan had ever done one thing right, you peg us as wishing to make him infallible, and whenever we make even the slightest criticism of Trisk Bjarni and even you it seems get all out of shape.
2004-02-18 20:40 | User Profile
"In the wake of the unprovoked Polinco attacks on OD.."
Polinco has been gone for a couple of years and while some people there attacked OD it was not V.O. He did make some reasoned criticisms of paleos which something you can't handle.
"The bottom line is that it wasn't Okie or myself who posted a long, rambling opus and quit the board in a huff and tizzy."
If you bother to look at the thread he started when he quit it explained reasons why he was unhappy with this forum. You clearly did not read what he said so what you say about it means nothing.
"Now with all due respect.."
Respect from Okie for some he disagrees with? What a bad joke.
"who are the one's getting all worked up, defending their side like an infallible god.."
That would be you and Tex.
"or pouring out bile and anathema's on anyone who disbelieves in the infallible V.O.?"
No one said V.O. is infallible so Okie is simply lying more to avoid the issues.
"For trying to get Trisk to suggest Buchanan had ever done one thing right, you peg us as wishing to make him infallible.."
V.O. and many others have written what seems to be reasonable criticism of Buchanan but rather then address any points you and Tex just keep on with the nazi/totalitarian/Linder/VNN/helping neo-cons/nihillist/doctrinaire stuff because you are unable to deal with the agruemnts raised.
"Really now. If you could tolerate the inanities of rban ("Hindu Supremacy") for over two years, to say nothing of some other buffoons who have passed through here but thankfully had the good sense to leave (Tommy Rennick, Raina, godlesscapitalist, sun tzu, etc), I really don't understand why Triskelion gets you and Okie so worked up."
Simple. They can't counter any thing he said with reason so they attack. If they had a position that could be defended they would rather then act like they do. I defend him by saying honestly why they are wrong so I get abuse.
I have attached a photo of V.O. and myself from about two or three years ago at a conferance on conservative economics that V.O. helped host in Odense. The one with the dark hair is me.
2004-02-19 01:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal]Simple. They can't counter any thing he said with reason so they attack. If they had a position that could be defended they would rather then act like they do. I defend him by saying honestly why they are wrong so I get abuse.[/QUOTE]
Tex and Okie have no answer to Triskelion. They never have, and they never will, because American paleoconservatism is as fatally flawed, outdated, and irrelevant to the current historical context as feudalism.
That's the reason Okie's posts on this issue are always so sarcastic and smarmy -- when you can't answer an argument with facts and logic, all you have left is personal attacks and misdirection.
2004-02-19 01:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Now with all due respect, who are the one's getting all worked up, defending their side like an infallible god, or pouring out bile and anathema's on anyone who disbelieves in the infallible V.O.?
For trying to get Trisk to suggest Buchanan had ever done one thing right, you peg us as wishing to make him infallible, and whenever we make even the slightest criticism of Trisk Bjarni and even you it seems get all out of shape.[/QUOTE]
Okie, Can you provide a link to the thread where VO says Pat Buchanan is:
a) an enemy of white people
b) never done anything good
2004-02-19 02:15 | User Profile
because American paleoconservatism is as fatally flawed, outdated, and irrelevant to the current historical context as feudalism.
Indeed. Race sets the agenda. The formula is race>culture, not politics>race>culture or any other variation. The taproot of Western culture is NOT political. This must be understood. It is racial. As long as paleoconservatives cling to their game plan of "politics, and if we have time we might mention race or Jews," then they will go nowhere. [If one tries to say, "well, have WNs gone anywhere?," the answer is: there has never been a real, large WN movement yet, except in Germany].
2004-02-19 07:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Okie, Can you provide a link to the thread where VO says Pat Buchanan is:
a) an enemy of white people
b) never done anything good[/QUOTE] [quote=Triskelion]The notion that Buchanan is involved in "tribal politics" is absurd. After listening to that unprincipled ââ¬Åpitchforkââ¬Â plutocrat defend the last war against Europa as necessary and defensible for bringing ââ¬Ådemocracyââ¬Â and an end to homogeneity (an article about those comments were/are to be found on the neo-confederate Whittaker on line site although I heard them myself) pretty much showed him to be a fraud. [url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showpost.php?p=64569&postcount=26]A Conservative No More - The Tribal Politics of Pat Buchanan[/url]
Check also the rest of the thread for more of the same.
I know I'll continue to take a lot of heat for this, but after listening to Triskelion rag endlessly on Buchanan I still can't think how similar his position is to Linder and VNN on this matter. To me its very substantial, and something I can't overlook. It shows, however glib and erudite the prose of the NSer, to adopt National Socialism, however you try to nuance it, is to adopt a mindset fundamentally and intractably opposed to conservatism (and conservatives) of any sort.
2004-02-19 07:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Okie, Can you provide a link to the thread where VO says Pat Buchanan is:
a) an enemy of white people
b) never done anything good[/QUOTE] [quote=Triskelion]The notion that Buchanan is involved in "tribal politics" is absurd. After listening to that unprincipled ââ¬Åpitchforkââ¬Â plutocrat defend the last war against Europa as necessary and defensible for bringing ââ¬Ådemocracyââ¬Â and an end to homogeneity (an article about those comments were/are to be found on the neo-confederate Whittaker on line site although I heard them myself) pretty much showed him to be a fraud. [url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showpost.php?p=64569&postcount=26]A Conservative No More - The Tribal Politics of Pat Buchanan[/url]
Check also the rest of the thread for more of the same.
I know I'll continue to take a lot of heat for this, but after listening to Triskelion rag endlessly on Buchanan I still can't think how similar his position is to Linder and VNN on this matter. To me its very substantial, and something I can't overlook. It shows, however glib and erudite the prose of the NSer, to adopt National Socialism, however you try to nuance it, is to adopt a mindset fundamentally and intractably opposed to conservatism (and conservatives) of any sort.
2004-02-19 07:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Tex and Okie have no answer to Triskelion.
Not exactly. I have chosen not to answer trisk. A more profitable exercise for me is to just go bang my head against a wall, because quite simply there is no give and take discussion that can be had with someone possessing the nazi mindsent. We've provided a public service here by exposing it. If I was uncertain of that glaring fact or insecure in my position, one would think that I would be censoring their comments or banning them outright. But I haven't. Indeed, Barney and/or trisk are free to stretch this thread out to infinity with long winded diatribes addressing every single sentence myself, Okie or anyone else composes. All it does in my view is further buttress our point. If you disagree or just don't see it then find out wherever trisk is posting these days and go and discuss things with him 'til your heart's content. I am confident that if you have any disagreement with him on any issue, sooner or later you will come to the same conclusion. Just please remember you heard it here first.
American paleoconservatism is as fatally flawed, outdated, and irrelevant to the current historical context as feudalism.
Then why are you here participating on a self-proclaimed paleocon board?
2004-02-19 09:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Tex and Okie have no answer to Triskelion.They never have, and they never will, Then how come he ran off, over the slightest of piques?
because American paleoconservatism is as fatally flawed, outdated, and irrelevant to the current historical context as feudalism.
Jonah Goldberg, William Kristol, or John Podheretz couldn't have said it any better.
Au Contraire, it is secular White Nationalism that we can see is the real loser. Shorn of its religious and conservative roots, it simply becomes the stupid persons version of neoconservatism. It thinks it can twist traditional conservatism to its own agenda, but that is something neoconservatism does infinitely better and more succesfully.
Let's face it, all Linder and his lemming followers are is Abe Foxman wannabees.
2004-02-19 12:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]:lol:. People think Chronicles is too estoric as it is. Getting into discussions of an antiquated 19th century doctrine with a name like distributivism I'm sure is really going to help them with who many people in the world? Probably 2 - the number of its boosters on this forum.
It sure isn't going to help them with anyone remotely sympathetic to the Franco/Linder/VNN types.
Start up your own distributivism mag Walter - see how many subscriptions you get.[/QUOTE]
Oh, no question that Distributivism is nowhere on the political radar screen. Nobody's even heard of it.
But as Bjarni points out, it really is just Catholic social thought. That's really all it is. One billion Catholics around the world should be fully versed in these ideas and should be working hard within their own political contexts to institute them in practice.
The fact that this is nowhere near the reality speaks to the utter failure of the Catholic Church's hierarchy to teach its own most fundamental doctrines. Think of the vast machinery of the Catholic Church, including its enormous publishing empire. If it even ran one small article per day describing some aspect of Catholic Social teaching, in a couple decades the situation would be dramatically changed.
But alas our lavender clergy is too bound up with the capitalist order top do anything of the sort. But don't get me started. :furious:
Anyway, the point is that at least on paper Distributivsm is very much in the mainstream, and it really wouldn't take much - just a few good bishops - to move Distributivism onto the political agenda.
The fact that good Catholics like Sobran and PJB (and Fleming too, I think) don't address this directly shows that they're just as terrified of getting in the crosshairs of the capitalist (largely Kosher) elite as are the bishops.
Walter
2004-02-19 18:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Oh, no question that Distributivism is nowhere on the political radar screen. Nobody's even heard of it.
But as Bjarni points out, it really is just Catholic social thought.
Thanks Walter for not calling me a liar too ;) (Of course Barni didn't specifically call me a liar here, it was probably some other perjorative. Don't want to get called a liar again ;) )
But alas our lavender clergy is too bound up with the capitalist order top do anything of the sort. But don't get me started. :furious:
Give me a break Walter. Goldberg Review is always whining about the "socialistic" thought and tendencies of the Bishops.
Its just that their anti-capitalistic thought is of the standard, Marxist variety.
The fact that good Catholics like Sobran and PJB (and Fleming too, I think) don't address this directly shows that they're just as terrified of getting in the crosshairs of the capitalist (largely Kosher) elite as are the bishops.
Walter[/QUOTE] Another possibility. Ever think that a few of their big capitalist contributors might not cotton to the idea? (Not that they have many in all likelihood, but just losing one or two can sometimes makea big difference)
2004-02-19 20:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Remember Chiang Kai Shek's land grants to peasants? Or the legacy of "Christian Socialism" in Austria and elsewhere in Europe? Why is it that Shek is regarded as a rightst hero while the very same policies in the US are disparaged as "socialist" by the Free Market Dogmatists?[/QUOTE]
Great post, AY.
De Valera's Ireland had many of these concepts written into Erin's Constitution, which are of course largely ignored by the Irish bench.
[QUOTE]Of course "distributism" isn't discussed because it sounds like an obscure, ivory tower term.[/QUOTE]
But you see, the point is that it sounds like an obscure, ivory tower term precisely because it's never discussed. Chicken and the egg thing, I guess.
You make some sound suggestions.
I think that we must take the radical step of greatly limiting the corporate organizational form. Here our much-vaunted federal system served us poorly, because the fact that each state could devise its own incorporation statute that had to be honored by all other states under the full faith and credit clause created a "race to the bottom" where state legislatures vied with each other to provide the most management friendly laws. Delaware won, as you undoubtedly know.
So, the first step would be to federalize incororation laws (don't shoot me, I see no other way to avoid the race to the bottom), leaving to the states regulation of cooperatives, general partnerships and sole proprietorships. Anything that provides limited liability must be severely curtailed, used only for very large enterprises that are inherently so big that the project can't practically be realized except that it be chartered. Power generation and transmission, railroads, maybe huge industrial enterprises like aircraft manufacturing. These should be chartered only by act of Congress, and should require very large capitalization. Since these large enterprises are subject to terrible management abuse (Enron, Waste Management, Tyco, Parmalat) certain safeguards must be instituted. First, all of their books must be audited by fully independent auditors. This Big 4 game where they make gazillions setting up the deals and then another gazillion or two auditing the same deals must cease. Second, no management member may ever serve on the board. The Board must be completely indepdendent, and must be served by people who have no other job. No more of these directors who spend a few days per year while riding for free on the CEO's private jet and voting however the CEO directs. Third, all management salaries must be capped to a factor of the average worker's salary - say 20 times. That's still a lot, IMHO, but it's not the obscene robbery of, say, Disney's Eisner who made $600 million in a single year. Fourth, terms must be limited to a reasonable period - say six years. No more of this dictator-for-life nonsense. Former management may never serve on the board.
I'm sure that there are other great ideas you and others can think of.
The policy should be toward ending the routine practice of incorporating any small enterprise, and enforce material liability for debts and torts through the use of the cooperative, general partnership and sole proprietorship organizational forms.
While I'm at it, we should also end the income tax and replace it with a steep retail sales tax. This would greatly ease the administrative burden now imposed on millions of American taxpayers and remove from the hand of the federal bureaucracy the crowbar it now holds that allows it to pry into every transaction no matter how trivial.
End of rant!
Walter
2004-02-20 01:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wintermute]This is good stuff, Okie.
Do you have a program that generates it? It's awfully lifelike and convincing.
Wintermute[/QUOTE]The question is- do they?
2004-02-20 02:49 | User Profile
ââ¬ÅThe notion that Buchanan is involved in "tribal politics" is absurd. After listening to that unprincipled ââ¬Åpitchforkââ¬Â plutocrat defend the last war against Europa as necessary and defensible for bringing ââ¬Ådemocracyââ¬Â and an end to homogeneity (an article about those comments were/are to be found on the neo-confederate Whittaker on line site although I heard them myself) pretty much showed him to be a fraud.ââ¬Â
Interesting that not even Okie or Tex attempt to say that substance of that quote is wrong. Not surprising that no one will dispute that Buchanan rejects racial separatism and condemns ââ¬Åracismââ¬Â to the degree he had a Congoid running mate so the reality is clear to anyone honest or perceptive (which excludes Tex and Okie obviously) that if you admit race is a fundamental problem for American Buchanan is not answer. Clearly Buchanan is a fraud, as you are, but V.O. never say he was a enemy of white people or that he never did anything good. He is no real alternative, is wrong about race and a failure election & policy wise and your childlike denial and personal attacks will not change that.
ââ¬ÅI know I'll continue to take a lot of heat for this, but after listening to Triskelion rag endlessly on Buchanan I still can't think how similar his position is to Linder and VNN on this matter.ââ¬Â
Youââ¬â¢ll get more heat because you are wrong, stupid and dishonest in your attack on V.O. and you defense of an unprincipled political failure named Buchanan. As to Linder and VNN you and Tex are the only ones that see any similarities beyond that both Linder and V.O. reject Buchanan. Both are correct that on race Buchanan is a zero but V.O. has also pointed out that he has other shortfalls that you have no ability to counter at all.
ââ¬ÅTo me its very substantial, and something I can't overlook. It shows, however glib and erudite the prose of the NSer, to adopt National Socialism, however you try to nuance it, is to adopt a mindset fundamentally and intractably opposed to conservatism (and conservatives) of any sort.
That statement proves you know nothing of conservatism or National Socialism. I wonââ¬â¢t explain what those terms mean as your are unable to read anything you donââ¬â¢t agree with and it is clear you have zero understanding of folkish thought of any kind and want to stay that way.
ââ¬ÅNot exactly.ââ¬Â
Not exactly is right. He mimics Okie and ignores what anyone say and is as dishonest in lying about V.O. as his lap dog.
ââ¬ÅI have chosen not to answer trisk.ââ¬Â
Given every time you speak on the matters V.O. has raised you look petty and dim silence is your best defense.
ââ¬ÅA more profitable exercise for me is to just go bang my head against a wall, because quite simply there is no give and take discussion that can be had with someone possessing the nazi mindset.ââ¬Â
A ââ¬ÅNazi mindsetââ¬Â? A very jewish way to describe someone that say Hitler is no model for modern day National Revolt, embraces decentralization, found Hitler too authoritarian, condemns most of those that claim to follow Hitler now and is anti-imperialist. That you say such a thing proves you clueless at best and a dishonest at worst. That you defend the idiotic Okie with out question makes me think that feeblemindedness and stupid are what defines you.
ââ¬ÅWe've provided a public service here by exposing it.ââ¬Â
Yes, you have exposed that you can not read your own tongue and that lack the brain power to see that what you write as not addressed anything V.O. or I have ever said.
ââ¬ÅIf I was uncertain of that glaring fact or insecure in my position, one would think that I would be censoring their comments or banning them outright.ââ¬Â No one would say that you are insecure in your position. You are boundless in your unfounded high opinion of yourself and never would you allow your lack of knowledge on things you speak of deflate your opinion or retract you banalities.
ââ¬Å But I haven't. Indeed, Barney and/or trisk are free to stretch this thread out to infinity with long winded diatribes addressing every single sentence myself, Okie or anyone else composes. All it does in my view is further buttress our point.ââ¬Â
Translation: Tex is tired of looking foolish so he will declare victory and retreat. The Barney thing is a fine example that Tex has a great wit for a 6 year old.
ââ¬ÅThen how come he ran off, over the slightest of piques?ââ¬Â
He described in great detail why he left and you acting the total craphead you are was a big part of it. You canââ¬â¢t/wonââ¬â¢t read anything he say you are forced to spout crap. If it was any other way
You would at least try to address something that he raised in the article honestly but we know you canââ¬â¢t which almost pitiable.
ââ¬ÅJonah Goldberg, William Kristol, or John Podheretz couldn't have said it any better. ââ¬Å
Here Okie shows he his poor grasp of logic. He implies that to disagree with paleos makes one a neo con no matter what the base of the disagreements are what one happens to want. A fallacy he repeats with his mantra of disagreeing with paleos = Linder = Jonah Goldberg/William Kristol/or John Podheretz. If Okie never wrote anything else that makes such implication proves him to be below contempt.
2004-02-20 04:46 | User Profile
Bjarni, did your mom have any kids?
2004-02-20 05:33 | User Profile
"Bjarni, did your mom have any kids?"
Okie is literally retarded as all mothers by defination have children. His clearly produced a permanent child lacking the clearity of mind to understand a fact of life mastered by my 3 year old son. I see now it is asking far to much of a simpleton like Okie to actually read and comprend anything so the reason for his anoying and illogical posts are clear.
2004-02-20 11:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Of course "distributism" isn't discussed because it sounds like an obscure, ivory tower term. However, attaching some other name to it, namely something with a pedigree of a viable political track record (such as "Populism," which had a rich history in late 19th and early 20gh century America) would make all of the difference. Then it's no longer esoteric, nor is it specifically tied to Catholicism.[/QUOTE]
About like my own ability to spell the bloody word. :blush:
How embarassing! I misspelled "septic" on another thread "sceptic", sheesh.
The problem is that my spellchecker isn't working. I can't figure out how to load the dictionaries.
[QUOTE]The ultimate goal should be the elimination of stock trading altogether and once again making management and ownership inextricably linked. I'm convinced that many of the evils of modern corporations stem from the dichotomy between ownership and responsibility created by vicarious ownership (i.e. the stock exchange). [/QUOTE]
That's actually a bit more radical than I had envisioned, but you may be right. My take on it is that modern civilization will require that large enterprises be publicly traded corporations, so I guess that I'm willing to tolerate some capitalism, just as I'm willing to tolerate some basic social welfare programs. Maybe I'm wrong about this, and my mind is wide open on the subject.
Anyway, as to public companies, if we're going to have them we need stock exchanges, although again we also need to institute very tight regulation of management, with a powerful system of checks and balances on their actions, as I outlined above. I don't know whether it makes sense to end specualtion altogether. You see, the whole thing about stock exchanges is that they allow a company's millions of atomized stockholders who lack any practical say in the management of the company to buy and sell at will, which seems to me the only logical compensation for losing all management rights for practical purposes at least.
On the social welfare front, I think that we could have, say, a basic social security program, but we need some checks on that, too. First, I'd say that anybody who receives a public assistance check or accepts government employment must forfeit the voting franchise until such time as they quit receiving state money. It's absolutely nuts that we let people vote themselves ever increasing portions of other people's money.
Walter
2004-02-20 14:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]... On the social welfare front, I think that we could have, say, a basic social security program, but we need some checks on that, too. First, I'd say that anybody who receives a public assistance check or accepts government employment must forfeit the voting franchise until such time as they quit receiving state money. It's absolutely nuts that we let people vote themselves ever increasing portions of other people's money. Walter[/QUOTE]
I like the idea of compulsory saving. I believe both Singapore and Chile do this, though I don't know much about their particular systems.
In addition to promoting widespread accumulation of savings, it doesnââ¬â¢t penalise responsibility the way welfare traps do.
2004-02-20 17:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BjarniTyrdal]"Bjarni, did your mom have any kids?"
Okie is literally retarded as all mothers by defination have children.
I don't know. Your mom seems to be the exception. :lol:
2004-02-20 20:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leveller]I like the idea of compulsory saving. I believe both Singapore and Chile do this, though I don't know much about their particular systems.
In addition to promoting widespread accumulation of savings, it doesnââ¬â¢t penalise responsibility the way welfare traps do.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, great point.
The Chilean system is really interesting for a number of reasons, but especially because it forces people to save and invest for their own retirement in the Chilean economy (at least in significant part). There's a healthy dose of econmic patriotism for you.
Of course, Chile hasn't dealt with the main disease of the corporate organizational form, at least as far as I'm aware. That really is the key, IMHO.
Walter