← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Grand_Inquisitor
Thread ID: 13092 | Posts: 20 | Started: 2004-04-09
2004-04-09 02:43 | User Profile
At the last American Renaisance conference that I attended, I heard Jared Taylor speak about how a Chinese are influencing US and other Western politicians through political contributions. The number that I heard was a few 10,000 dollars and this relatively meager sum had supposedly put a few politicians in the pocket of this wealthy Chinese investor.
At the end of his speech, I went up to Mr. Taylor ans asked him in so many words "If Chinese can come here and buy off our politicians, why can't we do the same thing? Couldn't we get together a few 10,000 dollars?"
I then proposed that we form some sort of PAC to advance white interests in the same way that homosexuals and others use money to influence politicians. Look at the example of homosexuals. Homosexuals themselves comprise such a tiny percentage of the population, yet they stick together and use PACs to their advantage to gain political clout. Why else do you think that homosexuals get the government to spend so much money on AIDS?
PACs have influence in this system.
We will never get a third party here to advance our interests. The costs just to get on the ballots here are overwhelming, not too mention the "two party mindset" of American voters. The best way to advance our interests is to do what other minority groups do and form a PAC to advance our interests.
There are two approaches that I suggest that we could take:
1) A non-racial approach. For example, take the issue of immigration. There are many other groups that oppose immigration: environmentalists and labor to name two.
If the NRA can get a million gun members to join their PAC, can't we find a million Americans who oppose immigration?
2) A more racial approach. Just like their are black and hispanic groups, have a PAC which lets politicians know that we whites have political muscle and will block vote like minorities.
What do you think?
2004-04-10 18:41 | User Profile
Have you seen this? [url]http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/[/url]
They have gained a moderate amount of influence, and are probably more successful in actually slowing down immigration into Britain than the BNP.
Anybody trying to imitate them would have to avoid an "extremist-right" image like the Plague. Migrationwatch has become mainstream by totally and pointedly not taking sides on ANY issue except immigration control, and offending absolutely no one, except blatant propagandists of mass immigration.
This has only worked, I guess, because they are genuinely not WNs in the first place, only conservationists.
They even cleverly exploit that fact by (essentially) telling their supporters that, by taking their recommended measures, they will preempt possible future victories of the BNP.
For hard-core WNs, this approach wonôt work, because you wouldnôt be able to dissemble. But for any true moderates around, who honestly are one-issue anti immigrationists, you should probably copy the Brits.
2004-04-10 19:17 | User Profile
1) A non-racial approach. For example, take the issue of immigration. There are many other groups that oppose immigration: environmentalists and labor to name two.
Ever heard of [url=http://www.immigrationcontrol.com/]Americans for Immigration Control[/url]? Samuel Francis is closely affiliated with this group, and it regularly runs stories in [url=http://www.manews.org]Middle American News[/url], a publication to which every paleo should subscribe. It's a 501c4 organization just like the NRA and Gun Owners of America, which means it can lobby elected officials, but donations to it are not tax-deductible.
The SPLC also considers it a "hate group" FWIW, so it must be over the target else it wouldn't be taking flak.
2004-04-10 19:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Another possibility would be an anti-Zionist PAC (or at least one pushing for neutrality in the Middle East). This "Counter AIPAC" has the potential to attract not only paleoconservatives, racialists, and libertarians, but also many on the Left who oppose Israeli hegemony.[/QUOTE]
I just found out the other day that there's one of those too! Headed up by two former GOP Congressmen, nonetheless! (Findley and McCloskey)
[url=http://www.cnionline.org/]Council for the National Interest[/url]
An organization blasting Christian Zionism and the USS Liberty incident can't be all that bad. It also appears to be 501c4 because it says that membership fees/donations are not tax-deductible.
2004-04-10 23:10 | User Profile
Hereôs another one:
Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy [url]http://www.realisticforeignpolicy.org/[/url]
2004-04-11 01:07 | User Profile
Great links Centinel. I'm joining both the AIC and the CNI. If you have a good one for general paleoconservative views, I'd be interested. I'd like to have one group to support that would be an example of the number of alienated conservatives in the US. But, I can't do the extremist pro-life rhetoric. Thanks.
2004-04-11 01:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]Great links Centinel. I'm joining both the AIC and the CNI. If you have a good one for general paleoconservative views, I'd be interested. I'd like to have one group to support that would be an example of the number of alienated conservatives in the US. But, I can't do the extremist pro-life rhetoric. Thanks.[/QUOTE]
Ron Paul's [url=http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/]Liberty Committee[/url] comes close to being a catch-all paleo lobby, but it's really more akin to being a paleo-libertarian lobby than one for paleocons. It opposes government benefits to illegals (Tom Tacredo is a Liberty Caucus member, BTW), but it doesn't call for increased border interdiction to my knowledge. Ron Paul did an awesome speech on the House floor last year in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion called "Neo-conned" that was mirrored at the Liberty Committee site, so they are somewhat anti-interventionist, too, but they don't seem to devote much effort to reversing the hijacking of US foreign policy by the Israel lobby.
If you are looking for a paleocon lobbying organization, the Charles Martel Society (the folks behind The Occidental Quarterly) has establishing a 501c3 public policy think tank and legal assistance group on its menu of projects:
[url=http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/cms-projects.html]CMS - Projects Page[/url]
You might also want to check out the Rockford Institute, publishers of Chronicles.
I believe Rockford is 501c3, meaning they can't lobby. My preference is for 501c4 single-issue organizations that are focused and can lobby.
I would also avoid Tom DeWeese's American Policy Center. It seemed like a good patriot think tank until Iraq, when it showed its warmongering Randian, pro-Israel colors in no uncertain terms. It's as neocon as WorldNetDeli.
2004-04-11 04:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]Great links Centinel. I'm joining both the AIC and the CNI. [/QUOTE]
One thing that irritates me about CNI is they seem to be interventionists with a pro-Palestinian bent, which ain't much better than the Israel lobby's hijacking of US foreign policy. Go to their links section on their website....with the exception of a link to ussliberty.org all of it is to leftist pro-Palestinain sites. Nothing to non-intervensionist sites like LewRockwell.com or Antiwar.com. Something tells me these people would love to see US troops in UN blue berets enforcing a "just peace" in the Holy Land.
I'm sure the CNI provides a valuable service in outing Israeli influence in US government, but I'm wary that they might be a front for the extreme left. I wonder if given the opportunity for the US to cut off all foreign aid to both sides and walk away and wash our hands of the whole mess what they'd say.
2004-04-11 06:44 | User Profile
Thanks for the links. Does anyone know how much lobbying that the group endorsed by S. Francis actually does? What are their membership numbers?
2004-04-12 07:42 | User Profile
I think that once we find a PAC that we support that we do more than write them a check.
I think that we should dress up in suits and approach neighbors about supporting our PACS. Go out there and discuss the issues with them.
We also need to narrow our focus. We don't need to get into other issues besides whatever one our PAC is for. For example, foreign policy issues should remain separate from immigration.
2004-04-14 00:27 | User Profile
GI: I thought someone would reply. The info is on the home page, 250,000 members and supporters, etc. Suits would be overkill if trying to make someone feel there is common ground. It's tough to sell that there is a lot of agreement, if someone is dressed completely different. Business casual for house to house is fine. Staying on message is great, but people want to know more than just a snapshot. I suggest a PAC have a platform of simple statements of stands on major issues.
If I am thinking of supporting someone, I want to know who they are, not get some prepared snippet of info. Anti-Christian views for example, such as the theology section at SF. People can tell if something's held back.
2004-04-14 23:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Grand_Inquisitor]Thanks for the links. Does anyone know how much lobbying that the group endorsed by S. Francis actually does? What are their membership numbers?[/QUOTE]
According to the AIC website they have "more than 250,000 members and supporters."
2004-04-26 12:20 | User Profile
For anyone wanting to follow up on creating a PAC, I have some information. 501(c)(3) is educational (like American Cause) 501(c)(4) is social welfare 527 is political (what they are trying to outlaw) Here are some links I thought were interesting. American Cause is about the cloest to what I see as a group for conservative causes. But, it doesn't hurt to have several. American Cause is a 501(c)(3) [url]http://www.tgci.com/magazine/99winter/voter2.asp[/url] [url]http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527grps.asp[/url] I'm wondering if the PAC is the way to go, or just stay a 501(c)(3) and educate/unite those of a particular mindset.
2004-04-26 15:17 | User Profile
Because reference to a particular candidate that shares the mindset should spur indivdual contributions and support. You can do a lot more with 1 million motivated supporters giving $15 than a PAC eeking out $5000 contributions to a candidate or $ [url]http://www.opensecrets.org/basics/law/index.asp[/url] I might also ask what's the problem with suppoorting what is already out there? [url]http://www.americafirstparty.org/docs/platform.shtml[/url] [url]http://www.theamericancause.org/issues.htm[/url] Sometimes I wonder if people aren't distracted by the excitement of starting something from scratch, like the guy on SF who put "Party Chairman" under his screenname. Let's just find some common ground and go with it.
2004-05-03 19:59 | User Profile
I don't know. There are 873 anti-immigration or immigration "reform" groups out there, and they ain't got sheet done. And they NEVER mention race. Is it pouring money down the hole? It's the classic "be racial/don't be racial" argument we always have, but once again, evidence for the success of the "non-racial" approach is pretty slim.
If you have cash to burn, sure, give to those groups, along with the NRA or whoever else you think is doing a good job on the outer flanks.
If I had boatloads of scratch, I'd pour money into White media. I'd cut fat checks to AmRen, VNN, Vdare, Stormfront, OD, National Vanguard, etc. I'd unload like Santa. Then I'd buy a big cush office on K Street, coupla floors, maybe, owner free and clear. I'd set up with phones, desks, numbers, computers, fax machines, printers, you name it. Get some servers so I could host my OWN website. Or sites. I'd call in some trusted pro-white people to advise on America's FIRST explicitly pro-white issue advocacy group. I'd fly in Tex, Franco, AY, Wintermute, Walter Yannis and whoever else. There would be a catered lunch.
I'd get spokespeople. Taylor if he would. Ed Steele? Sam Francis, perhaps, all those guys. Find some new ones. Who knows. Maybe it would be me. You'd see quotes in the paper, nice 'n reasonable. The Times would be frickin' FORCED to quote us. Whites would read the quotes and fall out of their breakfast chairs screaming that they agree with us. "Holy sheet, Mabel, look at this!" Dude'd call his friend. "Marty! Look at the paper! Finally, someone for us!"
I'd demand meetings with representatives and senators on immigration, foreign wars, affirmative action, freedom of association, you name it.
I'd get me some lawyers, a whole big gang of 'em, pinstriped and leather briefcases a' swingin'. We'd defend Hale, Zundel, whoever. Send in teams of the best. We'd file suits every-goddamn-where. We'd smother 'em with suits and complaints and threats to sue and get big settlements, you name it. We'd make big media deals outta the whole thing. Fat.
We'd set up college groups. Outreach. Voter information. Have speeches. Buy a huge hall and have 'em there. Minds would start to change. It wouldn't seem radical or scary or evil. People would come in in deck shoes and Dockers, not combat boots and tattoos. We'd have summer programs for students. We'd hire interns from Harvard. Harvard students would compete for them.
I'd call press conferences. Announce stats. I'd release reports. I'd challenge Foxman to debate. Sharpton, too. We'd look good. We'd be slick. We'd be smart. Media-savvy. Conscious.
We'd do polling. We'd have our OWN DAMN POLLSTERS. We'd release the results.
We'd have a political PAC. Fund white nationalist candidates everywhere. We'd do fundraising. More money would come it. We'd start getting it by the million. We'd surpass 'em all. We'd catch up the AARP, for God's sake. We'd have a White American Association of Retired Persons, and we'd kick the other one's ass.
We'd get people into Congress. The presidency. Judgeships. We'd throw out Brown v. Board. Bring the Constitution back into accord. All the anti-white law, ripped off the books and burned.
Oh, man. It would be great.
2004-05-03 20:03 | User Profile
As long as Jews control the politicians and the media, youre not going to have much success. So the lack of success is not evidence of failure for either strategy.
2004-05-03 21:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]I don't know. There are 873 anti-immigration or immigration "reform" groups out there, and they ain't got sheet done. And they NEVER mention race. Is it pouring money down the hole? It's the classic "be racial/don't be racial" argument we always have, but once again, evidence for the success of the "non-racial" approach is pretty slim.
Well, with the SPLC branding AIC as a "hate group" (despite their propensity to brand anything to the right of Hillary Clinton as a "hate group") and smearing Larry Pratt of GOA, it tells me they're at least somewhat over the target else they wouldn't be taking flak.
2004-05-03 22:05 | User Profile
Some of you guys think everyone is WN. Too many fools in that group for me. Demanding to undo 40 years of evil in 12 months is just plain foolish. That all or nothing attitude is for losers.
2004-05-04 06:07 | User Profile
The success of Jewish groups is largely dependent upon the willingness of individual Jews to donate time and money in their own interest. I keep referring to the eminent Dr. MacDonald and his paper on background traits for Jewish activism:
[url]http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/km-understanding.html[/url]
The Maxim Gun in this fight is not a particular political strategy or tactic, but rather the four uniquely Jewish traits: ethnocentrism, intelligence, psychological intensity, and aggressiveness. This is what they have got and we have not.
Let me break this down into a PAC situation-
A. Ethnocentrism- Political Jews can appeal to other Jews on the basis on their common Jewishness, without an ounce of shame. Jews tend to see the world in more racial terms than anyone else; as race is the name of the game, this allows them to have a greater efficiency in resources as fewer funds are pissed away on periphery issues that only provide indirect benefits. Even when pursuing indirect goals (like Freud and the Frankfurt School's pathologization of Christianity), they always advance them consciously and see their efforts as benefiting Jews.
B. Intelligence- I consider this the least important; Blacks, with some assistance, have accomplished significant political feats by being more ethnocentric than whites but less intelligent. The main function of Jewish intelligence is to generate Jewish money, which merely multiplies the effects of the other traits; it is not a basic component.
C. Psychological Intensity- The Political Jew can send an email to 500 Jewish supporters and generate 200 calls to Congress concerning any minor issue. Jews are more anxious and intense about things in general than whites, who tend to be more reflective and reserved. To get 200 whites to call Congress, even on a big issue like abortion, would take a much larger list.
D. Aggressiveness- Jews seek power and are not hesistant to take it, nor are concerned like whites with "playing fair." They properly see the natural state of inter-group conflict as an amoral anarchy with winner-take-all stakes.
What we do have is numbers. We have more total wealth than Jews, and more high-IQ people on an absolute basis.
The problem is that the portion of whites who are racially aware is painfully small, so we have to fight these stupid periphery issues that our enemies can turn against us. I mean, the Jews can publicly solicit support for the "American-Israel Public Affairs Committee" and not only not be run out of the country, but have some of our own people send them money. This is as absurd as David Duke raising money for the "White Separatist State Affairs Committee" in Israel, pressuring the Israeli government to send money to whites in the US seeking to form their own racial state.
They get so much bang for their buck by being able to hit their issues directly that I am not sure we can compete in the current environment. Without the existing structure of whites identifying as whites, caring about white issues, and wantonly desirng the aggressive expansion of white interests, pouring money into projects could be like buying gasoline for a car that needs a new battery. The Coors, Regnerys, and Fords and many other conservatives have fought this fight on the edges during the 20th century. I don't think the avoidance of race in some cases was due to cowardice- it was due to practicality when trying to muster an army that doesn't care to salute its own flag.
Whites are only aggressive, ethnocentric, and psychologically intense under very carefully cultivated cultural conditions (i.e. the old type of racism that was taught and maintained in the culture to guard our naturally compassionate hearts towards dead end charity towards other races) and during periods of economic distress. Thanks to our enemies victory in the culture, we must wait for the latter.
The situation is too bleak and too absurd to continue, unless we are to completely lose hope. But whites have not always been this way historically. The only explanation that has ever made any sense to me is Ygg's political interpretation of Elliott Wave Theory:
[url]http://home.ddc.net/ygg/cwar/crest.htm[/url]
We are at the height of a centuries-long economic boom that has brought with it the delusional ideas of a mania, a common cultural pattern of whites to ignore the ugly part of reality when feeling economically flush.
I say we keep waking up who we can, but preserve our precious few monetary resources for the day when we can make these appeals directly to our fellow whites without shame. Something that cannot go on forever will eventually stop.
If that day never comes, then we are really wasting our time anyway.
2004-05-05 21:20 | User Profile
Yes, but this is a waste we can't afford to indulge.
I will agree that compared to Jews, we whites have far, far less cohesion and identity, and that this makes for "wet grass" when we try to start brushfires. All Jews need to get a roaring fire going is a magnifying glass. We can't get anything started with sticks of dynamite. Whites are too soggy. They just don't care, or don't know, or don't care to know, or are scared shitless. But mostly, I think, it's apathy. Who cares about all this "white supremacy" business when you HAVE your SUV, you CAN go fishing, you CAN drink your beer, your boss isn't TOO bad, etc.?
If this is the full story, we have a big problem.
But I don't think it is. The number of racially conscious whites is painfully small, but they're also pretty bright (at least some). Yes, there are weirdos. That will always be the case. But it's up to the ones who get it to "dry out the grass" as much as they can.
I think about it this way, sometimes. It doesn't ****ing matter that the masses of whites are so lame. We have a responsibility to them. Whites should be saved whether they want it or not.