← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 13055 | Posts: 37 | Started: 2004-04-07
2004-04-07 00:12 | User Profile
SPLC on Paleoconservatives
Keeping America White At a meeting of 'paleoconservatives,' former Forbes editor Peter Brimelow and others sound the alarm on non-white immigration By Heidi Beirich and Mark Potok
Former Forbes editor, Alien Nation author and 'paleoconservative' Peter Brimelow
NEW ORLEANS -- They came from near and far, gathering inside the ritzy St. Louis Hotel for their 14th annual meeting. There was Srdja Trifkovic, who says he is a "Byzantine man," not a Renaissance man, and who thinks that total economic collapse would be a good thing for white people. Former bank CEO David Hartman came to say that Social Security and Medicare should be halted so that whites will have more children to take care of them in their old age.
Sam Francis was there, too, comparing non-white immigrants to "foreign colonizers, like space aliens."
And then there was Peter Brimelow. Some might have expected the well-heeled financial commentator, book author and influential nativist intellectual to feel somewhat out of his element at this gathering of the very far right.
But these were very much Brimelow's people.
They call themselves paleoconservatives ââ¬â but a more accurate term, and one that is actually used by many of those who attended the New Orleans meeting of the Rockford Institute's John Randolph Club, might be racial nationalists.
The club used to include libertarians and others with a variety of political views but, as chronicled in an important article by James Lubinskas, that has changed. The club has shrunk, become more politically isolated, and focused in on issues related to race.
Peter Brimelow exemplifies that change. In 1995, he published the bestselling Alien Nation, a book that argued that America is historically white-dominated and should stay that way ââ¬â but that was also written in a genial style and was careful to treat black Americans as part of the polity.
By 1997, he was warning that by 2008 the GOP would no longer be able to compete in presidential elections because the racial makeup of the electorate would be changed by non-white immigration.
Today, the former senior editor at Forbes magazine edits an anti-immigration Web page that carries an array of frankly white supremacist and anti-Semitic essays.
The Role of Race Brimelow's political evolution might have been predicted. Although his Alien Nation was well reviewed in many places, it included strong veins of racism and xenophobia.
He described the role of race as "elemental, absolute, fundamental." He said that white Americans should demand that U.S. immigration quotas be changed to allow in mostly whites. He argued that spending tax dollars on anything related to multiculturalism was "subversive." He called foreign immigrants "weird aliens with dubious habits."
He worried repeatedly that his son, with his "blue eyes" and "blond hair," would grow up in an America in which whites had lost the majority.
At one point, he wrote that if one enters an Immigration and Naturalization Service waiting room, just like entering the New York subways, "you find yourself in an underworld that is not just teeming but also almost entirely colored."
Even earlier, in 1993, Brimelow, who is himself an immigrant from England, lauded a book by Jared Taylor, who now oversees the racist American Renaissance magazine.
In his review, he said that racism is "undetectable" in opinion polls and "does not seem" to affect blacks' economic status. He said tax money spent to help blacks and the poor "has done little good and much ill." And he said that "policemen of all races are, if anything, more lenient with criminals of a different race."
In 1999, Brimelow started the Center for American Unity, where he remains president today. The center's most important project was a Web page called VDARE, named after Virginia Dare, the first English child born in the New World in 1587.
Brimelow has written that he once planned to bestow Dare's name on "the heroine of a projected fictional concluding chapter in Alien Nation, about the flight of the last white family in Los Angeles." He was, he said, "dissuaded."
Page: 1 [url]http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=152[/url]
Back to the Future Fast forward to 2003. Once a relatively mainstream anti-immigration page, VDARE has now become a meeting place for many on the radical right. One essay complains about how the government encourages "the garbage of Africa" to come to the United States. The same writer says once the "Mexican invasion" engulfs the country, "high teenage birthrates, poverty, ignorance and disease will be what remains."
Another says that Hispanics have a "significantly higher level of social pathology than American whites. ... In other words, some immigrants are better than others." Yet another complains that a Jewish immigrant rights group is helping "African Muslim refugees" come to America.
Brimelow's site carries archives of columns from men like Sam Francis, who is the editor of the newspaper of the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, a group whose Web page recently described blacks as "a retrograde species of humanity."
It has run articles by Jared Taylor, the editor of the white supremacist American Renaissance magazine, which specializes in dubious race and IQ studies and eugenics, the "science" of "race betterment" through selective breeding.
Recently, VDARE has even begun to publish the writings of Kevin MacDonald, a psychology professor at California State-Long Beach. MacDonald accuses Jews of "dominating" the "movement to change the ethnic balance of the United States by allowing mass, non-traditional [i.e., non-white] immigration."
He writes that Jews, believing "the masses ha[ve] to be deceived," frame their appeals in universalistic language. But behind that are "the Jewish agendas" of the deceivers. MacDonald also mentions "the famously heavy Jewish role" in television news.
Marching With the Confederacy Brimelow has some remarkable things to say in his own essays. Among them, he describes the Pioneer Fund ââ¬â a racist foundation that funds research like that favored by American Renaissance ââ¬â as "a perfectly respectable institution."
No wonder. Brimelow also runs articles by the Pioneer Fund's new president, Jean-Phillippe Rushton, another British expatriate who teaches at the University of Western Ontario and who has been investigated for violations of Canadian hate speech laws.
Among other things, Rushton has theorized about a supposed inverse relationship between penis and brain size (meaning, in his construction, that blacks on average are more promiscuous and less intelligent than whites and Asians).
In New Orleans, Brimelow joined about 80 people who paid $250 for the two-day session to discuss "America: A European Nation." Unfortunately for him, Sam Francis was the penultimate speaker, discussing how today's immigrants "don't even know how to flush a toilet, the flushing toilet, a European invention, being a marker of civilization."
Francis went on to say that the governors of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas should be tried for treason for meeting with Mexican President Vicente Fox. By the time he was done, Brimelow had eight minutes.
Brimelow raced through his usual speech on immigration, suggesting that Third World immigration had "changed the character of America" and calling for a cap on legal immigration and deportation of all illegals.
Meanwhile, in the atrium outside the conference room where the meeting was held, a band was playing pop hits by black artists for a wedding party. As the music came pounding through the wall, Brimelow denounced it as "crap."
And what would the advocate of a whiter America rather be listening to? A 19th-century Confederate marching tune, he said.
Editor's note: Based on evidence compiled by the Intelligence Report, the Southern Poverty Law Center is adding VDARE to its list of hate sites on the Web.
Page: 2
[url]http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=286[/url]
2004-04-07 01:50 | User Profile
If there is one group that makes you spitting mad, it is the SPLC.
I cannot put into words my negative feelings about those sick maggots. They are masters of political correctness, they use fear, guilt and shame better than anyone the planet..
If they are against it, I'm all for it ....
Nuff Said..
2004-04-07 18:19 | User Profile
What is most fascinating is their idea of contamination. SPLC believes that you may not take part in discussions with others who are linked to morally obnoxious ideas, however tenuous the link--otherwise, you are endorsing those ideas. This describes politically correctness to a tee, once we throw in an ever widening account of which ideas are non-kosher.
Brimelow presents a fair and balanced account of racial issues, and one that is clear in its denunciation of neo-Nazi sentiments.
As for the rest of the SPLC's claims--it is just pure garbage. Yes, Latinos really do have higher incidents of social pathology, and yes, racial gentics really is linked to IQ. The SPLC doesn't seriously believe that these ideas are false; they have no interest in the truth whatsoever. They are limit-testers. They are driven to make the most anti-white claims possible that they think they can get 'respectable' people to buy. End of story. In th end, they are doing us a service--helping along the dialectic to get to the point where we flush out the kind of garbage that they truly identify, namely anti-white hatred so strong it obliterates any interest in truth.
2005-03-16 19:26 | User Profile
:gunsmilie
2005-03-16 20:06 | User Profile
While Dr. Francis and Jared Taylor had always been in something of a class by themselves, I hadn't realized Peter Brimelow and the John Randolph Club were so advanced in their thinking. Good show! You can call me a paleo-conservative anytime you like....in the final analysis, these are the guys who are probably going to win this fight of ours, but we need a fascistic auxillliary, just in case.
2005-03-16 22:20 | User Profile
It's quite revealing that the "racist" charge is applied by ADL/SPLC to individuals who barely even talk about race explicitly (Trifkovic, Fleming, etc). What non-racially oriented paleoconservatives do talk about is the preservation of Western cultural and political institutions, so it is almost as though the Left instinctively knows what many paleoconservatives won't ackowledge - that Western cultural institutions are inseparable from the genetic endowments of the people who created them. Therefore, the Left understands that a defense of Western culture is implicitly "racist" just as the neocons understand that any criticism of US foreign policy has "anti-Semitic" implications.
2005-03-16 23:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]It's quite revealing that the "racist" charge is applied by ADL/SPLC to individuals who barely even talk about race explicitly (Trifkovic, Fleming, etc). What non-racially oriented paleoconservatives do talk about is the preservation of Western cultural and political institutions, so it is almost as though the Left instinctively knows what many paleoconservatives won't ackowledge - that Western cultural institutions are inseparable from the genetic endowments of the people who created them. Therefore, the Left understands that a defense of Western culture is implicitly "racist" just as the neocons understand that any criticism of US foreign policy has "anti-Semitic" implications.[/QUOTE]Well it certainly is true that the left (and crypto-left, aka neocons) have always tried to conflate conservatism and traditional nationalism as well as Christianity, with fascism and national socialism. The description of National Socialism deriving in a linear fashion from the Second Reich and its thinkers is typical here, and this methodology is exemplified in the Frankfurt School and its descendents (aka multiculturalism and deconstructivism).
I wouldn't say though it "instinctively understands" this, and sees racialism as its true enemy. I think it obviously rather sees conservative nationalism as its true enemy, and tries to weaken it by conflating it with fascism and national socialism, which ideologically are much weaker opponents. Weaker because unlike conservatism, their cultural claim to the the peoples of the west and their heritage is not really legitimate.
I must say though - if you wade through the obligatory cant - that the SPLC, and ADL also, do seem to act as a good background source for material at times. WN could imitate some of their techniques and methods, although of course they have a huge superiority in resources and talent.
2005-03-17 04:46 | User Profile
There must be something wrong with me.
Every time I read one of these commie smear pieces by the SPLC or ADL--which paint sinister pictures of a world of evil "racists" & "nazis" & "racial nationalists" inhabiting right-wing organizations that are supposed to scare the bejeesus out of us--makes we want to go out and join these organizations! Or, at least contribute financially to them.
Instead of turning me off, these commie smear pieces are actually turning me on.
For example, after reading a commie smear piece on The Occidental Quarterly in The American Prospect magazine ('White Noise,' 08/31/04), written by Max Blumenthal (Jew), I promptly went out and subscribed. I figured, if dirt-sucking leftists like Blumenthal & Co are opposed to The Occidental Quarterly, then it must be worth reading.
What in the world is wrong with me? :wink:
2005-03-17 13:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE]What in the world is wrong with me?[/QUOTE] It means you're healthy, but you knew that, didn't you? This is the thinking version of what white blood cells do to antibodies. The same thing has happen to me, the effect of these pieces are supposed to have has the exact opposite with me, showing that Newton's law is also in operation.
2005-03-17 14:23 | User Profile
Okay, good to know I'm not the only one experiencing a reaction to these hit pieces other than the one the writers intended.
Here's another confession: When I first became "aware," about 10 years ago, I used to troll the websites of SPLC and the ADL for info on what rightist organizations and publications were out there. They were really helpful in putting me in touch with the Far Right (Thanks again, guys!)
In fact, there was one liberal over in Texas, I think, who was obsessed with the "racist," "neo-Confederate" Southern Partisan magazine. He was so obsessed, that he listed the detailed contents of every back issue of the mag, going back years. I found it very helpful in ordering back issues for my collection. (Thanks!)
2005-03-17 14:39 | User Profile
S,
You'd think they would learn to keep their mouths shut and only distribute their materials to a select few. They may have concluded that most folks are too lazy to actually check the claims made. This would seem to be born out by Bill O'Reilly inviting Mark Potok on his show to comment about the Leftkow murder. Either O'Reilly didn't care about the sleaze that is the SPLC or he and his research staff are too damn lazy to look into them. Having the SPLC identified as a "civil rights group" is the like calling NAMBLA a child advocacy agency.
Incidentally, I too, have found them useful by what they condemn.
2005-03-17 19:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Well it certainly is true that the left (and crypto-left, aka neocons) have always tried to conflate conservatism and traditional nationalism as well as Christianity, with fascism and national socialism. The description of National Socialism deriving in a linear fashion from the Second Reich and its thinkers is typical here, and this methodology is exemplified in the Frankfurt School and its descendents (aka multiculturalism and deconstructivism).
I wouldn't say though it "instinctively understands" this, and sees racialism as its true enemy. I think it obviously rather sees conservative nationalism as its true enemy, and tries to weaken it by conflating it with fascism and national socialism, which ideologically are much weaker opponents. Weaker because unlike conservatism, their cultural claim to the the peoples of the west and their heritage is not really legitimate.
I must say though - if you wade through the obligatory cant - that the SPLC, and ADL also, do seem to act as a good background source for material at times. WN could imitate some of their techniques and methods, although of course they have a huge superiority in resources and talent.[/QUOTE]
I didn't say anything about National Socialism, that's a straw man. Europe and America alike were by today's standards racialist societies before and after National Socialism.
What I said is that it is impossible to truly be in favor of conserving traditional Western institutions without some racial separatist component. The Left recognizes this instinctively, that's why when Leftists hear talk of "Western culture" they cry "racist." Many (but not all) paleoconservatives shy away from this logical relationship.
2005-03-17 22:25 | User Profile
AntiYuppie,
You are most Right. I am often saddened by the fact that the Leftist are more honest in their discussions than the so-called ââ¬Åconservativesââ¬Â even the so-called ââ¬Åpaleoconservatives.ââ¬Â They are unwilling to attack the basic ascertains of cultural marxism.
[QUOTE]What non-racially oriented paleoconservatives do talk about is the preservation of Western cultural and political institutions, so it is almost as though the Left instinctively knows what many paleoconservatives won't ackowledge - that Western cultural institutions are inseparable from the genetic endowments of the people who created them.[/QUOTE]
2005-03-17 23:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]I didn't say anything about National Socialism, that's a straw man. Europe and America alike were by today's standards racialist societies before and after National Socialism. Yes the left doesn't use all the words , i.e. "National Socialist", "fascist", "racist" or "anti-semite" together at the same time when it talks about the anti-PC. But to the left those words are synonomous. Remember we were talking about how the left uses words, not how we use them. In the leftist world all these roads lead to National Socialism, as for Muslims all roads lead to Mecca, except this Mecca isn't halfway around he world but right next door.
What I said is that it is impossible to truly be in favor of conserving traditional Western institutions without some racial separatist component. The Left recognizes this instinctively, that's why when Leftists hear talk of "Western culture" they cry "racist." Sure, the left has always said all the various sorts of anti-liberalism, religion, (especially Christianity), conservatism, judeoskepticism lead to fascism and National Socialism. But they are being deceptive, as MacDonald notes, indeed that is their entire modus operendi, i.e, of the Frankfurt School. It is not some hidden "instinctive brilliance and recognition of the truth" - for the upper echelon it is brazen lying, for the lower echelons it is stupidity (actually believing these lies).
You seem to have bought into their logic in an inverse fashion, the way a genuinely deracinated jew, truly ignorant of his cultural roots, who upon realizing he's jewish and wishing to return to his roots starts reading and patterning his persona on tracts like "ritual jewish murder". > Many (but not all) paleoconservatives shy away from this logical relationship.[/QUOTE]Well sure that has always been a distinguishing character of conservatives, even the revolutionary conservatives like Spengler and Junger, their rejection of explicit racism. For which of course the Nazi's criticized them harshly.
2005-03-18 00:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]What I said is that it is impossible to truly be in favor of conserving traditional Western institutions without some racial separatist component. The Left recognizes this instinctively, that's why when Leftists hear talk of "Western culture" they cry "racist." [/QUOTE]
I wonder if the Left really has better instincts or that the charge of 'racism' has proven to be such an effective weapon against the Right. All the Left has to do is make the charge and then 95% of the Right's political efforts go to denying said charge instead of advancing their agenda. Think of Buchanan's 2000 run and the charge of anti-semitism that the mainstream media incessantly hounded him on at every turn. When almost every vehicle for getting one's message out into the public arena is controlled by the ideological enemy, one has to figure out a way to get around that. So far the true Right hasn't done so and it is reflected in today's political climate.
2005-03-18 00:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I wonder if the Left really has better instincts or that the charge of 'racism' has proven to be such an effective weapon against the Right. All the Left has to do is make the charge and then 95% of the Right's political efforts go to denying said charge instead of advancing their agenda. Think of Buchanan's 2000 run and the charge of anti-semitism that the mainstream media incessantly hounded him on at every turn.[/QUOTE]Well we all know of course Pat was a traitor to the cause. Think of it, all he had to do was start wearing a swastika and grow a mustache, and people would have come running to him and he would have been elected President. Shute, we probably wouldn't even have needed an election, his followers would have just marched down Pennsylvania avenue and installed him as [I]fuhrer [/I] for life. Instead he chose to forego all that just to keep his CNN job, and we just have to wait till 2008 for Linder to show us how its done. (Assuming he isn't planning a march of his own) :lol:
2005-03-18 03:01 | User Profile
Great article faust! The very definition of "foriegn" in the dictionary should include reference to the splc next to it.
2005-03-18 18:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Yes the left doesn't use all the words , i.e. "National Socialist", "fascist", "racist" or "anti-semite" together at the same time when it talks about the anti-PC. But to the left those words are synonomous. Remember we were talking about how the left uses words, not how we use them. In the leftist world all these roads lead to National Socialism, as for Muslims all roads lead to Mecca, except this Mecca isn't halfway around he world but right next door.
I wasn't talking about Leftist terminology here (for whom anyone to the right of Arbusto, and even Arbusto himself is probably "racist") but rather the fact that yesteryear's "respectable conservatives" (your Kirks, Burnhams, etc) did not believe in foolish notions of racial equality and a "colorblind society."
Well sure that has always been a distinguishing character of conservatives, even the revolutionary conservatives like Spengler and Junger, their rejection of explicit racism. For which of course the Nazi's criticized them harshly.[/QUOTE]
You seem to do the reverse of what you accuse me of doing. If I accept the leftist interpretation of what constitutes "racialism," you accept the National Socialist standard, whereby people like Spengler or Schmitt were suspect for not being explicitly racist. Yet I'm sure if you asked Spengler or Schmitt "Is the negro equal in his capacities to Western man" and "has Jewish influence been a net minus or plus for Germany" they would give an answer that would never make it into today's "conservative" publications.
My point is simply that some form of "racialism" (not genocidal hatred, but acknowlegement of certain realities) was always inseparable from the Right until the neocon takeover. What I have in mind in saying that society was normatively "racist" was the presence of racial and ethnic immigration quotas and Jim Crow laws, not Auschwitz. I would argue that this is the most important thing separating cosmopolitan neoism and Arbusto's GOP from the old right.
2005-03-19 01:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]I wasn't talking about Leftist terminology here (for whom anyone to the right of Arbusto, and even Arbusto himself is probably "racist") Well this whole minithread started out with you talking about the left's use of terminology> It's quite revealing that the "racist" charge is applied by ADL/SPLC to individuals who barely even talk about race explicitly (Trifkovic, Fleming, etc). Which you seemed to approve of, and then seemed to try to contrast, approvingly, with some paleoconservatives silence on the issue
[quote=AntiYuppie]but rather the fact that yesteryear's "respectable conservatives" (your Kirks, Burnhams, etc) did not believe in foolish notions of racial equality and a "colorblind society." re: your early quote
individuals who barely even talk about race explicitly (Trifkovic, Fleming, etc). What non-racially oriented paleoconservatives do talk about is the preservation of Western cultural and political institutions, so it is almost as though the Left instinctively knows what many paleoconservatives won't ackowledge - that Western cultural institutions are inseparable from the genetic endowments of the people who created them. Therefore, the Left understands that a defense of Western culture is implicitly "racist" just as the neocons understand that any criticism of US foreign policy has "anti-Semitic" implications. Your point seems to be the the left is at least more "racially aware" than paleoconservatism, that it even talks about race more, and this is a good thing, inasmuch as I can understand what your point is and why you're making it.
[quote=AntiYuppie]You seem to do the reverse of what you accuse me of doing. If I accept the leftist interpretation of what constitutes "racialism," you accept the National Socialist standard, whereby people like Spengler or Schmitt were suspect for not being explicitly racist. Well obviously I (as you don't accept the National Socialist standard on the place of race, and your standards are far away from NS PC race standards also. And I'm certainly not saying you accept the leftists standards on racialism, you are doing the opposite are you not, saying that for the left to accuse people like Fleming and Trifkovic of racialism is absurb?
[quote=AntiYuppie]Yet I'm sure if you asked Spengler or Schmitt "Is the negro equal in his capacities to Western man" and "has Jewish influence been a net minus or plus for Germany" they would give an answer that would never make it into today's "conservative" publications. Conjecture, although most of what Spengler wrote certainly would have difficulty making it into todays conservative publications, as they are now edited, although it was less so even a few years ago. But its difficult to find one, and I would argue that it was because Spengler disliked racial politics. Statements like "racial politics is the lowest form of conservatism," and "many of those who talk most about race have the least of it in them" typified his discussion on it. This was probably also a main reason he declined Gregor Strasser's offer to get involved in the NSDAP, when he expressed his reservations about not only the Nazi's but the whole "folkish" movement in general. His reservations about the folkish movements simplistic racialism (re Nietzsche's "the grosse simplifiers") and their insistence on pinning people down on this, I think had a large part of his reluctance to get involved in politics
My point is simply that some form of "racialism" (not genocidal hatred, but acknowlegement of certain realities) was always inseparable from the Right until the neocon takeover. What I have in mind in saying that society was normatively "racist" was the presence of racial and ethnic immigration quotas and Jim Crow laws, not Auschwitz. I would argue that this is the most important thing separating cosmopolitan neoism and Arbusto's GOP from the old right.[/QUOTE]To some extent it is true, that conservatives always talked about race quite a bit differently than the left until things started changing in recent decades. But it was never I think a fixed part of their thinking as it was the racialists, more a part of a general paternalistic worldview toward the third world and its cultures. It wasn't an absolute, [I]idee fixe[/I] part of their world view, but a recognition of realities. And realities can change to some extent, especially when there are more tangible, solid, and important things in your worldview.
In this sense Fleming and Trifkovic seem to me to still be in the tradition of not only Burnham and Kirk, but of Spengler and Schmitt.
2005-03-20 22:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Your point seems to be the the left is at least more "racially aware" than paleoconservatism, that it even talks about race more, and this is a good thing, inasmuch as I can understand what your point is and why you're making it.
Leftists are more racially aware, in an inverted sense of the word. Unlike many conservatives, they recognize that race and culture are inextricably related, and that to subvert Western culture they must subvert and disempower the race that created it. In contrast, many on the Right insist on talking of cultural and political institutions as abstractions divorced from race, which amounts to a refusal to attack the leftists (whether they call themselves liberal or neoconservative) on the proper turf.
Conjecture, although most of what Spengler wrote certainly would have difficulty making it into todays conservative publications, as they are now edited, although it was less so even a few years ago. But its difficult to find one, and I would argue that it was because Spengler disliked racial politics. Statements like "racial politics is the lowest form of conservatism," and "many of those who talk most about race have the least of it in them" typified his discussion on it. This was probably also a main reason he declined Gregor Strasser's offer to get involved in the NSDAP, when he expressed his reservations about not only the Nazi's but the whole "folkish" movement in general. His reservations about the folkish movements simplistic racialism (re Nietzsche's "the grosse simplifiers") and their insistence on pinning people down on this, I think had a large part of his reluctance to get involved in politics
Well, Spengler does warn of the "colored world revolution" and the danger of exposing non-whites to European science, technology, and armaments. His last public pronouncement was a short radio address on "Prospects for World Peace" where he warns that pacifism is suicidal for Europeans in a world where non-Europeans are not pacifists and look upon Europe's power with hatred and envy. Try getting that into a syndicated column today (unless you're talking about an enemy of Israel, that is).
That Spengler, Junger, Schmitt, and Georg's racialism was more nuanced than that of Hitler is a given. Keep in mind that apart from Jews, Germany was a racially homogeneous society in the 1920's and 30's. They didn't even have the Turks and Arabs that are overrunning Europe today. When a non-Nazi German rightist rejected volkische politics, he was essentially rejecting NS's more radical conception of the Jewish question and means of dealing with it. Germany did not have a 12% negro population that caused 50-60% of violent felonies or a 10% and growing hispanic population that causes nearly as many problems, and even Jews were not nearly as powerful and influential in 1920's Germany as they are in America today.
So to say that racial concerns should not be the focus of America in 2005 because it wasn't the focus of German (non-NS) rightists in 1925 is simply to admit that they are different worlds. For 1920's Germans the "colored world revolution" was taking place a continent away. For us today, it's taking place in our backyards.
To some extent it is true, that conservatives always talked about race quite a bit differently than the left until things started changing in recent decades. But it was never I think a fixed part of their thinking as it was the racialists, more a part of a general paternalistic worldview toward the third world and its cultures. It wasn't an absolute, [I]idee fixe[/I] part of their world view, but a recognition of realities. And realities can change to some extent, especially when there are more tangible, solid, and important things in your worldview.
You're right in that even among the right there was always a divide between the paternalistic colonialists who believed in the "white man's burden" to civilize and bring peace to the savages and the more pessimistic isolationists who felt that the less we had to do with the peoples of the Third World the better off everyone would be. Unfortunately, this debate has been replaced by the liberal egalitarian view that says that the Third World will become First under the right circumstances, with the only debate being whether to "Americanize" them by carrot (liberals) or by stick (neocons).
2005-03-21 01:06 | User Profile
AntiYuppie,
Yes, if Right will not "attack the leftists (whether they call themselves liberal or neoconservative) on the proper turf." There is no chance of ever getting anything done.
The marxist victory in the culture war is almost total!
[QUOTE]Leftists are more racially aware, in an inverted sense of the word. Unlike many conservatives, they recognize that race and culture are inextricably related, and that to subvert Western culture they must subvert and disempower the race that created it. In contrast, many on the Right insist on talking of cultural and political institutions as abstractions divorced from race, which amounts to a refusal to attack the leftists (whether they call themselves liberal or neoconservative) on the proper turf.
...
For 1920's Germans the "colored world revolution" was taking place a continent away. For us today, it's taking place in our backyards.
...
You're right in that even among the right there was always a divide between the paternalistic colonialists who believed in the "white man's burden" to civilize and bring peace to the savages and the more pessimistic isolationists who felt that the less we had to do with the peoples of the Third World the better off everyone would be. Unfortunately, this debate has been replaced by the liberal egalitarian view that says that the Third World will become First under the right circumstances, with the only debate being whether to "Americanize" them by carrot (liberals) or by stick (neocons).[/QUOTE]
2005-03-21 01:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Leftists are more racially aware, in an inverted sense of the word. Unlike many conservatives, they recognize that race and culture are inextricably related, and that to subvert Western culture they must subvert and disempower the race that created it. In contrast, many on the Right insist on talking of cultural and political institutions as abstractions divorced from race, which amounts to a refusal to attack the leftists (whether they call themselves liberal or neoconservative) on the proper turf. You may give leftists too much credit. In any event in this regard they are hardly different these days from neoconservatives.
Well, Spengler does warn of the "colored world revolution" and the danger of exposing non-whites to European science, technology, and armaments. His last public pronouncement was a short radio address on "Prospects for World Peace" where he warns that pacifism is suicidal for Europeans in a world where non-Europeans are not pacifists and look upon Europe's power with hatred and envy. Try getting that into a syndicated column today (unless you're talking about an enemy of Israel, that is). Well change the terms slightly, to "third world" and its the same.
That Spengler, Junger, Schmitt, and Georg's racialism was more nuanced than that of Hitler is a given. Keep in mind that apart from Jews, Germany was a racially homogeneous society in the 1920's and 30's. They didn't even have the Turks and Arabs that are overrunning Europe today. When a non-Nazi German rightist rejected volkische politics, he was essentially rejecting NS's more radical conception of the Jewish question and means of dealing with it. Germany did not have a 12% negro population that caused 50-60% of violent felonies or a 10% and growing hispanic population that causes nearly as many problems, and even Jews were not nearly as powerful and influential in 1920's Germany as they are in America today.
So to say that racial concerns should not be the focus of America in 2005 because it wasn't the focus of German (non-NS) rightists in 1925 is simply to admit that they are different worlds. For 1920's Germans the "colored world revolution" was taking place a continent away. For us today, it's taking place in our backyards.
Germany was more than today, true. But it had its imimigration also. Berlin was a great haven for eastern immigrants, both jew and gentile.
Germany also had some colonies, of course, albeit less than the British and French. So they weren't that different. And many cultural differences that today seem minor were then quite a bit more significant, regional, religious, ethnic differences, etc. So it really wasn't that different a place, considering the time span. That's why we find it it some ways still so interesting and relevant.
You're right in that even among the right there was always a divide between the paternalistic colonialists who believed in the "white man's burden" to civilize and bring peace to the savages and the more pessimistic isolationists who felt that the less we had to do with the peoples of the Third World the better off everyone would be. Unfortunately, this debate has been replaced by the liberal egalitarian view that says that the Third World will become First under the right circumstances, with the only debate being whether to "Americanize" them by carrot (liberals) or by stick (neocons).[/QUOTE]Of course some still try to make the first world the third.
2005-03-21 03:05 | User Profile
I am frankly glad that the SPLC smear operation has over the past few years begun to add Paleo-Conservative organizations and individuals to their list of "hate groups." For a long time many of the Paleos have tried very hard to moderate their language so something of that kind would not happen. It was something that was bound to happen. These hysterical SPLC idiots are always looking for new enemies they can beat up on.
I think, however the SPLC is making a mistake in picking on the Paleos in the advancement of their nutty agenda. An alliance between the more radical Paleos and the more responsible White Nationalists minus the "horned-helmet/ funny uniform" crowd might actually have some possibilites. The Paleos have too many "pie-in-the-sky" intellectuals and historical nostalgics. The White Nationalists have almost no real intellectuals at all. Tom Fleming's Paleo-Conservative-Paleo-Libertarian allaince was a well-intentioned error. Maybe an alliance of Radical Paleos and non-eccentric White Nationalists can bear good fruit. The success of the NPD in Germany is based upon a kind of similar coalition strategy.
2005-03-21 03:17 | User Profile
Maybe an alliance of Radical Paleos and non-eccentric White Nationalists can bear good fruit. The success of the NPD in Germany is based upon a kind of similar coalition strategy.
Keep in mind that in Germany and most other European countries it is illegal under the draconian Thoughtcrime statutes to swagger forth in NS drag.
Perhaps the higher quality of leadership in the Mother Continent is due to this forced need for subtlety in symbolism and rhetoric...how many dozens of Harold Covingtons would you swap for a single LePen?
2005-03-21 03:40 | User Profile
The NPD has a lot of different strands of Nationalism working together. They have Catholic Third-Positionist types, semi-NS elements, ex-leftists, Skinheads and Nouvelle Droite all working together for a common cause. In the ole USA such an alliance would be impossible and would dissolve in five minutes due to our immaturity and pettiness.
2005-03-21 03:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CornCod]The NPD has a lot of different strands of Nationalism working together. They have Catholic Third-Positionist types, semi-NS elements, ex-leftists, Skinheads and Nouvelle Droite all working together for a common cause. In the ole USA such an alliance would be impossible and would dissolve in five minutes due to our immaturity and pettiness.[/QUOTE]
What would it take in America?
A George Wallace with extra-regional appeal? A Ross Perot with charisma and hipness to the real issues? A Buchanan capable of forging a true Populist coalition?
I'm optimistic that it will come--but the Plutocracy has thus far co-opted our natural base...despite its wholesale betrayal of the Euro working & middle classes in America.
2005-03-21 04:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.]What would it take in America?
A George Wallace with extra-regional appeal? A Ross Perot with charisma and hipness to the real issues? A Buchanan capable of forging a true Populist coalition?
I'm optimistic that it will come--but the Plutocracy has thus far co-opted our natural base...despite its wholesale betrayal of the Euro working & middle classes in America.[/QUOTE]Skip Perot, but Buchanan and Wallace both achieved big nationwide votes for a while. In 1972 - Wallace remember him getting 40% in the Michigan Democratic Primary? Before he got shot.
Duke actually I thank had national appeal for a while, although he was coopted by Buchanan. And then went to prison.
I think that's the most important lesson from our failures. Its not that we don't get attractive candidates occasionally, but ever notice how something always seems to happen to them - Huey Long, Wallace, Duke?
That's why we need a party. Single candidate movements are too vulnerable, for obvious reasons.
2005-03-21 05:08 | User Profile
Excellent points.
In the 1950-2000 era the Television was the primary propaganda medium--perhaps that's why the charisma of individual personalities dominated Third Party movements.
2005-03-21 05:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.]Excellent points.
In the 1950-2000 era the Television was the primary propaganda medium--perhaps that's why the charisma of individual personalities dominated Third Party movements.[/QUOTE]What I've noted is the rank and file are quite willing to be practical whenever someone comes along who supports our basic position and principles. The leadership of the various factions however almost always puts a fierce fight over their various little internecine power issues. That's why successful candidates, like Duke, always achieve their success when they jettison their mercurial fringe movements and run on their own, basically.
The problem is a lot of the time when they do this, they don't complete the task of building new organizations. Buchanan never built an organization around himself, and Duke never really did either.
What's needed is sort of a cross between the two really. Parties without good marque candidates are a waste of time, but candidates really need some sort of party to help their individual victories become a genuine movement.
2005-03-21 06:01 | User Profile
I think our only hope is to wait for or create a chain of events that will somehow cause a split within the establishment. We need at least a piece of the ruling oligarchy or we will never get near the levers of power. The 2nd Buchanan campaign was pretty much destroyed in a couple of weeks when the ruling class began to get a little afraid after the New Hampshire victory (I know, I was there). The oligarchy can destroy these little political campaigns with barely any effort at all.
I don't think a total "out-group" can become a ruling elite unless some big shots in business, government and other institutions find it in their interest to throw in their lot with societal innovators like Paleo-Cons or Racial Nationalists.
Right now, Post 911, the Jews are the most powerful group and the other partners in the oligarchy, the WASP business elite, are just along for the ride. I don't know how we are going to do this, but how are we going to get the WASP billionaires angry at the Jew billionaires thereby causing a split of some kind. I have struggled with the faint beginnings of this puzzle for many years. Any ideas my cyber-friends?
2005-03-21 06:17 | User Profile
The Regime's destruction of Buchanan's campaign can't be studied too closely or too carefully--here's a superb contemporary article from JBS's The New American (albeit heavy on the CFR role and light on the Tribal dynamics):
Vol. 12, No. 06 March 18, 1996 Table of Contents More on attacks on conservatives More on Elections/Political Campaigns
[url]http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no06/vo12no06_buchanan.htm[/url]
Targeted for Destruction by John F. McManus
Pat Buchanan's campaign has raised the ire of the Establishment
When I raise my hand to take that oath of office, [the] new world order comes crashing down.
In a speech following his dramatic victory in the New Hampshire primary, presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan warned his followers, "We no longer have the element of surprise.... They're going to come after this campaign with everything they've got." Within hours, "they" - the political Establishment which Buchanan has rebuked so forcefully in his campaign - lit into the candidate with a vengeance.
Before the echo of Buchanan's words had faded, the political Establishment, and its controlled media in the U.S. and abroad, took up the chorus of defamation against Buchanan and his supporters. Prominent among the defamers were members of Buchanan's own Republican Party. Retired General Colin Powell, a Beltway veteran who did not become a Republican until last fall, was sought out by a media hungry for "responsible" Republican reactions to Buchanan's victory. Powell performed on cue, accusing Buchanan of wanting to "pull up the drawbridge" and cut America off from the world.
"Conservative" Jack Kemp dismissed Buchanan's victory, claiming that it "was based on fear." "Conservative" activist William Bennett urged Republicans to fight "Buchananism" by throwing their support behind former Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander. New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who had supported Democrat Mario Cuomo in the gubernatorial race against Republican George Pataki, also condemned Buchanan, contending that some of his writings as a journalist "suggest the possibility that he's anti-Semitic." Rabbi Yehuda Levin, an advisor to the Buchanan campaign, obviously holds a different view of the candidate.
Similar charges were offered by Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, the GOP Establishment's preferred presidential candidate, who accused Buchanan of speaking in "code words" which convey racist and anti-Semitic messages. His campaign against Buchanan, Dole declared, was now a battle of "mainstream versus extreme." "We're not off on a fringe somewhere. We're not going to take the Republican Party over a cliff," Dole later told an audience in South Dakota.
Smears against Buchanan also filled the pages of the foreign press. Mexico's El Pais wrote of Buchanan, "His declarations are always tinged with machismo, homophobia, racism, and anti-Semitism." One German newspaper described Buchanan as an American equivalent of Russian militant Vladimir Zhirinovsky; another insisted that he "speaks like an American Mussolini." The Edinburgh Gazette headlined its account of the New Hampshire Victory "Heil Buchanan!" London's Guardian wrote that Buchanan's "chauvinist, reactionary and bigoted message is profoundly disturbing." Perhaps the most amazing story came from a Russian wire service, which received a news release allegedly written by Zhirinovsky congratulating Buchanan on his victory and describing him as a "comrade and brother-in-arms." Numerous "news" stories cited this dubious Russian dispatch in their indictment of Buchanan as a hateful "extremist."
Early Attack
But **the orchestrated campaign of defamation against Buchanan began before his victory in New Hampshire. Just days before the primary, a report issued by a liberal lobby calling itself the "Center for Public Integrity" accused Larry Pratt, a co-chair of Buchanan's campaign, of consorting with white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups. While it is true that such disreputable individuals have attended events at which Pratt has spoken, Myrna Shinbaum of the Anti-Defamation League admitted to the press that her organization has no record of Pratt expressing anti-Semitic or racist views. Pratt was placed on leave, and the opinion cartel used its self-generated controversy as an excuse to revisit slurs of racism and anti-Semitism which had been thrown at Buchanan during his 1992 campaign.
On four successive days leading up to the February 20th shoot-out in New Hampshire, the New York Times used its main editorial space to label Buchanan a "red-meat orator," who exudes "a certain reek of testosterone," has "a swaggering presence," offers "simplistic, but highly emotive harangues," can be counted on for "xenophobic views," and whose criticism of the Gulf War "was widely judged to be filled with anti-Semitic innuendo." William Safire, a syndicated columnist for the Times who describes himself as a "conservative," repeated without objection the sophomoric slur that Buchanan's speech at the 1992 Republican convention "sounded better in the original German."
Interspersed among all these smears, the New York Times managed to present accurately some of Buchanan's positions. While many Americans who heard these views nodded their heads in agreement, the Times' labeled them "overwhelmingly negative," noting:
[Buchanan] is against the United Nations and NATO, against free-trade agreements, against foreign aid and against American support for Israel. He would not have sent American troops to Bosnia just as he would not have sent them to the Persian Gulf five years ago. He has little use for arms control treaties....
Millions of Americans, including those who do not agree with every particular in Buchanan's platform, share his opposition to foreign aid and the attack on American sovereignty, and would gravitate toward a candidate who forcefully expresses those views. This is why the preferred tactic of Buchanan's critics is to keep people talking about the spurious accusations against the candidate as if they were established facts, rather than discussing his indictment of the Establishment and its policies.**
Identifying the Foe
Who and what is this Establishment? Syndicated columnist Edith Kermit Roosevelt - a granddaughter of Teddy Roosevelt - accurately answered the question in one of her 1961 columns:
The word "Establishment" is a general term for the power elite in international finance, business, the professions and government, largely from the northeast, who wield most of the power regardless of who is in the White House. Most people are unaware of the existence of this "legitimate Mafia." Yet the power of the Establishment makes itself felt from the professor who seeks a foundation grant, to the candidate for a Cabinet post or State Department job. It affects the nation's policies in almost every area.
Had Edith Roosevelt chosen to identify the core of this "power elite," she could have pinpointed the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Washington Post ombudsman Richard Harwood explained in 1993 that the Council on Foreign Relations is "the closest thing we have to a ruling Establishment in the United States.... [Its members are] the people who, for more than half a century, have managed our international affairs and our military-industrial complex." That "ruling Establishment" includes the barons of the media, whom Harwood styled "Ruling Class journalists." These CFR propagandists use their positions and influence to spread CFR-approved views and attitudes, and to smother any contrary views.
Ever since its founding in 1921 by the socialists and internationalists who dominated the Woodrow Wilson Administration, the CFR's ultimate goal has been the establishment of a "new world order" which would dominate mankind economically through socialism and politically through world government.
While the CFR is the undeniable core of the Establishment, the Insiders rely on other groups and individuals to propel our nation into the new world order. Among these groups are the World Affairs Council, the Trilateral Commission, the Atlantic Council, the United Nations Association of the United States, etc. And on the CFR's list of 3,237 members (508 of whom are "U.S. Government Officials") can be found such notables as Bill Clinton, Warren Christopher, Newt Gingrich, Henry Kissinger, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and a score of senators and congressmen.
A Devious Technique
During the 1970s and early 1980s, banker David Rockefeller sat at the top of this Insider power base. When Rockefeller stepped down as the CFR's chairman in 1985, the Council tapped former Nixon Administration Secretary of Commerce Peter G. Peterson, himself a New York investment banker and a veteran CFR member.
Peterson served as a member of the Socialist International's (SI) Brandt Commission from 1977 to 1980. In 1980 the Brandt Commission publicly advocated the creation of a host of international controls including international currency, international regulation of industry, international supervision of energy production, etc. These socialists even called openly for a "new international economic order." And they chose to announce their desires during a gathering held at United Nations headquarters in New York, a fitting host for such ideas. Peterson, therefore, is no newcomer to the campaign for global government. He fits well as the CFR's chairman of the board.
Peterson is open about his intention to have the CFR influence the thinking of the nation. In his "Letter From the Chairman" in the CFR's 1995 Annual Report, he wrote: "We must help spark and shape the debate about the new foreign policy challenges and our country's global role...." Peterson's choice of words is key to understanding how he and his colleagues achieve their goals. Especially significant is his intention to have the CFR help shape the debate. Such shaping effectively excludes everything that would impede advancement toward world government, and includes only a pre-determined selection of routes leading to that destination. For example, ending foreign aid is never discussed in the CFR-defined debate - only who gets how much. No discussion about withdrawing from the UN is allowed, but merely how far and at what speed the U.S. should surrender sovereignty to the world body. Instead of focusing the debate on our regaining control of the economic life of this nation by renouncing NAFTA and GATT, the debate concentrates on entangling the U.S. in still more international economic unions.
Should one dare to champion alternatives other than those created or tolerated by the CFR's agenda-setters and debate-shapers, he should be prepared for an all-out attack - as Buchanan warned his supporters after his New Hampshire victory. The CFR will also occasionally take the offensive by attacking a contrary view so as to insure that such a challenge is met before it catches on with too many.
An example of this tactic can be found in the July/August 1995 Foreign Affairs, which leads off with an essay by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. condemning "isolationism." A longtime promoter of world government, Schlesinger spices his contempt for American sovereignty with this self-indicting comment: "It is to Joseph Stalin that Americans owe the 40-year suppression of the isolationist impulse." Isolationism to these people means hunkering down and building a fence around yourself - or, as CFR member Colin Powell put it, "pull[ing] up the drawbridge."
The Buchanan Challenge
As a columnist and commentator, Pat Buchanan has been challenging the Insiders for years. When President George Bush began his 1990 crusade for the "new world order" and a "reinvigorated" United Nations by sending U.S. troops to oppose Saddam Hussein, Buchanan wrote:
The Trilateralist-CFR, Wall Street-Big Business elite: the neo-conservative intellectuals who dominate the think tanks and op-ed pages; the Old Left, with its one-world, collective security, UN uber alles dream: All have come together behind the "new world order." Everyone is on board, or so it seems. But out there, trying to break through is the old authentic voice of American patriotism, of nationalism, of America First, saying hell, no, we won't go.
In late 1991, as Buchanan formally entered the Republican race against Mr. Bush, he lamented that European nations were delivering their sovereignty to the European Community (now the European Union). Recognizing that EC membership was a significant step toward world government, he offered: "We Americans must not let that happen here. We must not trade in our sovereignty for a cushioned seat at the head table of anyone's new world order."
All during the 1992 campaign, Buchanan kept up his attacks on the Insiders. And then, as now, the Establishment sought to defuse his challenge by burying him beneath a blizzard of buzz-words: anti-Semite, bigot, neo-fascist, extremist, nativist, isolationist, and racist. Who issued them? Most of the mud-throwers were self-styled conservatives who were themselves members of the Council on Foreign Relations: Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal; A.M. Rosenthal of the New York Times; "conservative leader" William F. Buckley; columnist Charles Krauthammer; publishers R. Emmett Tyrrell, Irving Kristol, and Norman Podhoretz; and Newt Gingrich, who at the time was the House minority whip. The high point of Buchanan's 1992 run for the Republican presidential nomination came when he won 37 percent of the vote in New Hampshire's primary. His good showing only led enthusiasts for the new world order to aim more personal attacks his way.
Targeting NAFTA, GATT
Defeated in his first attempt in presidential politics, Buchanan went back to journalism, where he continued to peck away at the new world order and its architects. After looking over what he had accomplished in 1992 (which included gaining three million votes in 33 primaries), he began laying plans for another run for President.
He vigorously spoke out against having the U.S. join Canada and Mexico in NAFTA, which was a carbon copy of the European Community he had earlier warned against. It is an economic union, which leads to a political union, which in turn leads to world government. When the Insiders prevailed and Congress approved U.S. entry into NAFTA, he termed the congressional sellout a "wrenching defeat for middle America." In his column for November 20, 1993, Buchanan listed some of those who collaborated to bring it about:
The Fortune 500 and the Big Banks, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, the Democratic leadership in both houses of Congress, and the Republican leadership in both houses of Congress. The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, the entire Punditocracy, Heritage Foundation and Cato, Brookings and the AEI [American Enterprise Institute], the New Republic and Empower America, all the former presidents, and secretaries of state and Nobel Prize winners in economics. All the King's Horses and all the King's Men.
While the internationalists had won this important round, the message about the harm their victory would bring the U.S. started reaching many more Americans. The alternative media's burgeoning clout - including conservative publications like THE NEW AMERICAN - continued to grow.
In December 1993, a full year before Congress approved the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Buchanan supplied more perspective for those who care about America's independence. He condemned "GATT and the IMF, the U.N. and NAFTA, the World Bank and the Earth Summit, each a tiny strand to tie America down like Gulliver, until she awakens one day enmeshed in a world government from which there is no escape...." Buchanan was aggressively bucking the agenda of the Insiders, letting Americans know that they didn't have to stay within the boundaries of debate shaped by the CFR and its allies. Other choices existed, options that would protect national sovereignty and keep America strong.
In early 1995, as he geared up for his 1996 campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Buchanan offered a resounding condemnation of the bipartisan bailout of Mexico. In his final column before formally announcing his candidacy, he blasted the Republican leadership in both houses of Congress for going along with Bill Clinton, another CFR member, "on the $50 billion peso bailout of the Wall Street cronies of [Treasury Secretary and CFR member] Robert Rubin." He said it was time to defend America's borders from the invasion of illegal aliens, roll back federal taxes, outlaw racial quotas, and return power to the states. And he pointed out that his chief rivals for the nomination, including Senator Bob Dole, had fallen in line with the Establishment.
March to Respectability
As 1996 began, so did Buchanan's march to heightened respectability with voters and to renewed defamation by the "experts." He won in Alaska, delivered a knockout blow to Phil Gramm in Louisiana, rose to top-tier status with a strong finish in Iowa, and overcame an early 50 percentage-point deficit to defeat Bob Dole in New Hampshire. Even before his February 20th triumph in New Hampshire, the leading lights of the Establishment media cranked up their invective machines and exceeded what they had issued in 1992. On the eve of the primary, network news programs gave generous exposure to a Boston Globe columnist who had attacked New Hampshire and its residents as eccentric, backwards, and extreme.
A few days before New Hampshire, the Wall Street Journal carried David Brooks' assertion that "Pat Buchanan does not represent modern conservatism." More important than Brooks' view, however, has been the widespread reading of Buchanan out of the "conservative" camp because of his attack on America's corporate giants. He is one candidate who claims that these men care little about American jobs going overseas - that they have pledged their allegiance to the bottom line.
The day after New Hampshire, the Boston Globe's David Nyhan took note of this criticism, writing, "Buchanan is about to be repudiated by the barons of the party he's served for decades. It won't be pretty." Indeed it wasn't.
Right of "Center"
Following the New Hampshire primary, retiring Senator William Cohen (R-ME), a member of the CFR, told PBS interviewer Charlie Rose that although Buchanan had "struck a chord" with the electorate, he should be shunned because he would "govern our country, not from the center, but from the right...." The "center," of course, is defined by the Establishment; it is home to those positions which are compatible with the Insiders' objectives. Bob Dole, who has never let principle intrude into his politics, could be considered the model of a "centrist": He has supported foreign aid, the UN-directed Gulf War, the unconstitutional Brady gun control law, NAFTA, GATT, the unconstitutional deployment of American fighting men in Bosnia under UN/NATO direction, and numerous other "centrist" measures.
After losing in New Hampshire, Dole declared: "I believe we have a responsibility throughout the world. I've tried to demonstrate cooperation with the Presidents [of both parties] from time to time on what I considered to be grave responsibilities, whether the Gulf crisis, or Bosnia, or GATT, or whatever it might be." This was not an appeal to the Republican electorate, a growing portion of which despises all of these positions. Rather, it was a plea for help from Establishment Republicans.
Buchanan has stated that he seeks to restore constitutional discipline to the federal government. However, this is a task which cannot be accomplished through the executive branch alone. The surer way to save our country from the new world order is through the House of Representatives. All that Pat Buchanan wants, and more, can be accomplished if a determined House majority will simply rely on the Constitution's Article I, Section 7: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." If 218 House members would stand fast and refuse to originate a measure to fund the UN, NATO, the World Bank, foreign aid, and a host of federal agencies, America's ties to the new world order would soon be broken.
Buchanan's early success is testimony to the fact that the American people are discovering that the ruling Establishment has become the greatest threat to their nation's independence and their freedom. Let no one delude himself that this cabal, which has had its way for so long, is about to give Buchanan an open pass to the White House. Getting the nomination will be far more difficult than even he wants to admit. But the growing awareness which is propelling Buchanan did not begin with his efforts alone, nor will it be stifled should his campaign fall short of its goal.
Education Is the Key
In December 1958, Robert Welch created the John Birch Society, an organization of loyal and concerned Americans who would take needed information directly to the American people, bypassing the Establishment media. Among the John Birch Society's most effective tools for educating the electorate have been the TRIM Bulletins, report cards showing the voting performance of individual House members. Millions of these bulletins have been distributed in congressional districts throughout the country, helping to keep or find a fiscally sound and determinedly committed constitutionalist. The results of this educational campaign were definitely felt in the 1994 House elections.
The Birch Society is an alternative information source which has had a profound effect on the thinking of millions. Many of the themes sounded by Buchanan - such as the threat of a UN-dominated "new world order," the dangers of the sovereignty-compromising GATT and NAFTA accords, and the betrayal of the U.S. military to UN control - have been highlighted in Birch educational efforts for years. We must also credit the efforts of other principled conservative groups - pro-life organizations, gun rights groups, property rights activists, and constitutionalists - as well as the contributions made by alternative media such as fax networks, the Internet, radio talk shows, and newsletters.
As more and more Americans have come to realize that there indeed are choices other than NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, etc. to turn to for facts and perspective, their reliance on the Establishment-controlled media has faded, and they have become less content to accept one or another of the Insiders' false alternatives. As a result, the Establishment's hold on America steadily crumbles.
Without accepting every view put forth by Pat Buchanan, concerned Americans can delight in the shock waves he is delivering to Establishment Insiders. He is both riding the crest of a wave and building its strength. The battle for America is far from lost. From coast to coast, good Americans have just begun to fight.
.
é Copyright 2004 American Opinion Publishing Incorporated
2005-03-21 06:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CornCod]I think our only hope is to wait for or create a chain of events that will somehow cause a split within the establishment. We need at least a piece of the ruling oligarchy or we will never get near the levers of power. The 2nd Buchanan campaign was pretty much destroyed in a couple of weeks when the ruling class began to get a little afraid after the New Hampshire victory (I know, I was there). The oligarchy can destroy these little political campaigns with barely any effort at all. Well it seems to me the problem is that hard-right fringe candidates have moved too quickly to the federal level. It certainly is an uphill battle here, plus, you get an immediatae counter-reaction.
Pierre Trudeau, surveying the success of Mao (one of his three favorite people) said their success proved not all revolutions have to aim first at the power thrones. He said the Chicom strategy of establishing regional revolutionary vanguards worked very well.
David Duke had initial success in LA (not unlike Giles' recent good showing in MS) but he over reached IMO running for the US Senate. If he'd stayed in LA and tried to follow in the steps of Huey Long first he might have had more success.
I don't think a total "out-group" can become a ruling elite unless some big shots in business, government and other institutions find it in their interest to throw in their lot with societal innovators like Paleo-Cons or Racial Nationalists.
Right now, Post 911, the Jews are the most powerful group and the other partners in the oligarchy, the WASP business elite, are just along for the ride. I don't know how we are going to do this, but how are we going to get the WASP billionaires angry at the Jew billionaires thereby causing a split of some kind. I have struggled with the faint beginnings of this puzzle for many years. Any ideas my cyber-friends?[/QUOTE]Well I think there's some support. Elites always have tensions among themselves, and are never uniform. But I think there have been movements that have succeeded with much elite support. Its just our movement (at least on this forum) seems to be infatuated with turning up our noses at the masses instead or helping them. In fact I think a lot of those pride themselves on being as isolated as possible and cultivating their Nietszchien lone superman mentality.
We haven't even wanted to politic on the internet,let alone find a way to reach Joe Sixpack.
2005-03-21 06:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]David Duke had initial success in LA (not unlike Giles' recent good showing in MS) but he over reached IMO running for the US Senate. If he'd stayed in LA and tried to follow in the steps of Huey Long first he might have had more success.
I bet Giles would have a fighting chance of being elected to the Mississippi state legislature--a more realistic goal at this time than running for federal Congress.
2005-03-21 06:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CornCod]I think our only hope is to wait for or create a chain of events that will somehow cause a split within the establishment.
Immigration is the wedge issue to steer some GOP'ers into the nationalist camp and cause a schism within the party. It didn't come to fruition in 2004, because mainstream Middle America is just beginning the process of waking up to mass immigration, multiculturalism, neocons, and imperial wars fought for Eretz Yisroel.
That's why even though I get pissed off at [url=http://www.manews.org]Middle American News[/url] for running Ann Coulter and treating Israel with (IMO) kid gloves, I still subscribe and give subscriptions to friends. And support [url=http://www.immigrationcontrol.com]Americans for Immigration Control[/url], with which M.A.N. is closely allied....in fact, M.A.N. uses AIC's mailing list to send free copies to people. It's the only paleo pub I know of with an aggressive outreach, and it's solidly anti-immigrant.
And many older guys--often willing to write checks to 501(c)(4) orgs like AIC--aren't on the Internet much, if at all, so having a "hard copy" method to reach these people is important.
BTW, the SPLC considers AIC to be a "hate group." That old adage about if you're taking flak, you must be over the target comes to mind.
2005-03-21 07:00 | User Profile
Borders, Language, Culture--anyone? :D
The Plutocracy has abandoned or co-opted many causes backed by 60%+ super-majorities--Immigration; Quotas; Foreign Adventurism; Halting "Outsourcing"; Rescinding NAFTA...
Who speaks for the Dispossessed Majority?
2005-03-21 07:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]I bet Giles would have a fighting chance of being elected to the Mississippi state legislature--a more realistic goal at this time than running for federal Congress.[/QUOTE]Well I don't know about him personally. But if [B]he[/B] can do it, [B]anyone[/B] (almost) can.:wacko:
2005-03-21 13:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]Immigration is the wedge issue to steer some GOP'ers into the nationalist camp and cause a schism within the party.[/QUOTE]
Amen.