← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · All Old Right
Thread ID: 13693 | Posts: 26 | Started: 2004-05-14
2004-05-14 15:59 | User Profile
Amazing the trash the gets replies on activism forums. Billy-jo is really jim-bob pretending to be JFK.
In case someone is actually interested in more than talk and brain farting, some good info on 527 political organizations. To go 501c3 or 527 is a tough decision.
[url]http://www.brook.edu/gs/cf/headlines/527_intro.htm[/url] [url]http://www.reason.com/interviews/bradleysmith.shtml[/url]
2004-05-14 17:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Today, the Federal Election Commission http://www.fec.gov/ ruled http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/13/politics/campaign/13WIRE-FEC.html?ex=1085112000&en=8e95f7d008e9b641&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE that for the next three months at least, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform regulations will not be interpreted to cover "527s http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/search.aspx?act=exp&sec=totalexp&sub=topcom"-political organizations such as George Soros http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/search.aspx?act=com&orgid=681' Media Fund http://mediafund04.org/ that are not affiliated with specific politicians and therefore exempt from certain federal taxes under Section 527 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/527.html of the tax code. The campaign-finance lobby, which has traditionally skewed Democratic, sees 527s as blatant loophole-exploiters, gobbling up $59 million in unregulated soft money http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/report.aspx?aid=120&sid=300 the first three months of 2004 alone. Republicans, meanwhile, note that the 10 biggest 527s this year are all gunning for President George W. Bush. Yet the bipartisan, six-member FEC shot down the bipartisan 527 proposal http://www.fec.gov/agenda/mtgdoc04-44.pdf by a vote of 4-2, then decided to table the question until at least August, effectively nixing any new rules for the 2004 election cycle. Which means that the views of FEC Chairman Bradley Smith, John McCain's Republican nemesis, have carried the day.[/QUOTE]
As long as 527 organizations can continue to be free of FEC financial limits, they are definitely the way to go.
Forming a nationalist/paleocon 527 that works within the two-party system would be more effective than forming a third party. I would love to see our own party going up against the duopoly, but the anti-new party election and campaign financing laws make that impractical. For example, while many states have excessive petition requirements for third party candidates, it's much easier to qualify for a major party primary ballot.
Remember, when David Duke made his Populist Party run for the presidency in the '80s, the media ignored him. However, when he was elected to the Louisiana legislature as a Republican, and later ran as a GOPer for senator and governor, he was national news. Granted, the press was almost universally negative, but still, "bad publicity is better than no publicity".
Perhaps we should take a tip from the 19th century robber baron, Jay Gould, who controlled the Erie Railroad. When asked about his politics, Gould replied, "In Democratic districts I support the Democrats. In Republican districts, the Republicans, [I]but I am always for Erie[/I]."
2004-05-14 17:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]In case someone is actually interested in more than talk and brain farting, some good info on 527 political organizations. To go 501c3 or 527 is a tough decision.[/QUOTE]
Sounds wonderful AOR, and a few of us have done more than a bit of exploring the possibilities out there, but two major problems always present themselves: 1) no money, and 2) our brethren with the legal minds and corresponding credentials don't ever seem to want to help and the legal issues involved seem insurmountable for a layman such as myself to go it alone.
Tell me how you would solve those two problems and I'm all ears.
2004-05-14 18:15 | User Profile
May I ask what you specifically want to accomplish with these organizations? What might be their names and stated purpose?
2004-05-15 05:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Sounds wonderful AOR, and a few of us have done more than a bit of exploring the possibilities out there, but two major problems always present themselves: 1) no money, and 2) our brethren with the legal minds and corresponding credentials don't ever seem to want to help and the legal issues involved seem insurmountable for a layman such as myself to go it alone.
Tell me how you would solve those two problems and I'm all ears.[/QUOTE] I can't see the dire need for legal help, unless for lawsuits. A decent accountant should be able to handle the tax implications for a non-profit, and shouldn't break the bank. If you're asking for a step by step tutorial on how to form a non profit...there's a lot of info on the web. Nolo prints fine books. And, your church may have some helpful advice. As far as money, lots of churches and food banks are non-profits and most of them have very limited resources. A lot depends on the message, and clarity of the message. They find a way.
[url]http://www.celdf.org/gats/gats1.asp[/url] Interesting info on 501c3 that may apply to most states.
[url]http://www.nonprofitexpert.com/nonprofit_law.htm[/url]
2004-05-15 14:38 | User Profile
[quote=texas dissident]Sounds wonderful AOR, and a few of us have done more than a bit of exploring the possibilities out there, but two major problems always present themselves: 1) no money, and 2) our brethren with the legal minds and corresponding credentials don't ever seem to want to help and the legal issues involved seem insurmountable for a layman such as myself to go it alone.
Tell me how you would solve those two problems and I'm all ears.[QUOTE=All Old Right]I can't see the dire need for legal help, unless for lawsuits. A decent accountant should be able to handle the tax implications for a non-profit, and shouldn't break the bank. If you're asking for a step by step tutorial on how to form a non profit...there's a lot of info on the web. Nolo prints fine books. And, your church may have some helpful advice. As far as money, lots of churches and food banks are non-profits and most of them have very limited resources. A lot depends on the message, and clarity of the message. They find a way.
[url]http://www.celdf.org/gats/gats1.asp[/url] Interesting info on 501c3 that may apply to most states.
[url]http://www.nonprofitexpert.com/nonprofit_law.htm[/url][/QUOTE] Good we're all thinking about activity. The V.O. affair has shown the limits of purely cyberspace organizations, I think.
The V.O. affair also I think showed many of the obstacles lurking behind above ground organization. Clearly even moderate NS's like V.O. were adamantly opposed to any organization of a type (i.e. Buchananite or Am. Ren in tone) moderate enough to attract a substantial enough following, at least initially, that it would be worthwhile going through the trouble to organize for. Any legal organization requires a certain amount of overhead and legal/administrative boilerplate. Without a certain critical mass of people and support it isn't worth the trouble IMO.
(I don't mean just to pick on the V.O./NS types BTW. There are other just generally unstable personalities out there too, as we're all aware of, who are cabable of sabotaging formal organizations, and certainly won't help any to say the least.)
Creating organizations is good, but I think it might also be worthwhile to repursue some formal affiliation with some of the existing organizations out there, Am. Ren, CofCC, Rebel Army/Jim Giles, David Duke,etc. We ought to be able to at least get them to link to us I'd think. I'd think a more formal relationship to some of the existing established organizations out there would be a first step toward establishing a formal organization which would better compliment us.
2004-05-23 18:34 | User Profile
Okie: I really don't see how the people you mention are predominantly supportive of traditonal conservative values. They are occupied with matters of race and culture, and Jim Giles in a rather agressive manner. Not that I wouldn't want Jim on my side in a fight or as a next door neighbor, but certain activities require different skill sets. I don't understand where that gets anybody, to just concentrate on what end result they want. Or to show anger and emotion when trying to communicate a point. We need a methodical way to get that end result. To me, it makes whites as confused as the NAACP crowd, expecting influence and contentment to come from racial identity versus substantive political policy. And, to clarify, I do not use some technical defintion of white, but the traditional lily white of northern euro. Often when people are critical, they damn the northern euro, but when it's about who gets included, white means anything from Indian to some South American sugar farmer. Let's be clear, in the US and in most nations, white means english-speaking, not olive colored, northern euro, at least that's who gets targeted when white male bashing. I don't see Italian-Americans standing in line for that treatment. As far as I am concerned, the group that takes the heat as well as benefits is the core group. Despite what the greedy third worlders like to say, the US is NOT a nation of immigrants. We were colonized by English and northern euro contrymen.
So, the racial discussion will never end in anything by argument. It's a reasonable question, "how white is white?". Who cares? Let me establish how I want to live. That's what state's rights are all about. The other guy's freedoms end when they start screwing with mine, and that's where we are with immigration and fighting for Israel, and federalism. I couldn't care less if it is Hispanics, jews, whoever...if they are causing me problems, I need to try to stop it and live the best way I can. I can't do that alone. Nobody can, not when millions of the opposing view have no problems uniting in an effort to establish and execute long-term over politiucal policy goals.
It's like I tell to pro-lifers. If they would accept different methods of protest, Roe v. Wade would be overturned by now. But, they insist on emotion-based, Bible-waving grandstanding. The Constitution Party(in its current form) would be a disaster in power. As would the Libertarians and their misguided immigration stand. The reason is because they have one or two pet issues and use the rest as window dressing to bait and switch people towards their pet issues. A viable political entity has to be complete, honest, and offer valid alternatives and policy for the variety that is in real world situations.
If we could just once, get some movement in the direction of consistent core conservative principles, true conservatism would advance once again. Less government includes all kinds of laws controling moral behavior. Fiscal responsibility and tradition means we can't keep taking in 3 millions third worlders a year when US jobs are being outsourced at a record pace...nor can the US become a non-english speaking country and maintain its identity and culture. National sovreignty and security means the US can't keep getting into shoving matches just because it has more means of using force(currently).
What I see from "whites" is talk of anarcho capitalism or national socialism...both of which are about as representative of our national founding as Mars. The best I can tell, it's not about white and non-white, but class envy. The national socialists are just as greedy for something they didn't work for as the scrubby immigrants sneaking across the border. So, if you have some existing groups to suggest, that primarily represent paleoconservative values...and not just to entice potential followers in a bait and switch, I will be more to happy to consider those choices.
Added: Not saying Okie is bait and switching, but that the followers of the groups presented have posted trash both here and at SF and discredited those movements past recovery. And, they use the promise and draw of "conservative values" to reel people into their posts.
2004-05-23 19:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]Okie: I really don't see how the people you mention are predominantly supportive of traditonal conservative values. They are occupied with matters of race and culture, and Jim Giles in a rather agressive manner.
And for some here culture's a small part of the equation.
The national socialists are just as greedy for something they didn't work for as the scrubby immigrants sneaking across the border. So, if you have some existing groups to suggest, that primarily represent paleoconservative values...and not just to entice potential followers in a bait and switch, I will be more to happy to consider those choices.
You might try American Renaissance. It seems to be opposed for all the wrong reasons.
[url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=13722]Prospects for Our Movement: Jared Taylor?s talk at the 2004 American Renaissance[/url] :lol:
Added: Not saying Okie is bait and switching, but that the followers of the groups presented have posted trash both here and at SF and discredited those movements past recovery. And, they use the promise and draw of "conservative values" to reel people into their posts.[/QUOTE]
Well I really don't see much "bait" about it myself - they're about as subtle as a bull in a china closet.
If Ferric's a big tent racialist, I'm more of a big tent rightist. You sound a little bit more like a narrow tent conservative.
Narrowness seems to have its advantages. Bringing all these groups together, who seem to fight and hate each other more than any of their supposed enemies, may be an impossible task. Of course this divisiveness may in part be encouraged by outside influences, like "Trisk" may very well have been. But it still doesn't make it any easier.
2004-05-24 17:50 | User Profile
I still didn't get an answer why, on a paleoconservative forum, "us organizing" yields invitations to Amer Ren, David Duke, CofCC and similar entities associated more often to Stormfront than traditional conservative boards? Not that I really need one, just an interesting dynamic. I don't consider Hitler a conservative. What did he advocate in line with paleoconservatism, smaller central governement, etc.
2004-05-24 20:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]I still didn't get an answer why, on a paleoconservative forum, "us organizing" yields invitations to Amer Ren, David Duke, CofCC and similar entities associated more often to Stormfront than traditional conservative boards? Not that I really need one, just an interesting dynamic. I don't consider Hitler a conservative. What did he advocate in line with paleoconservatism, smaller central governement, etc.[/QUOTE]You associate CoCC and even Am.Ren. with Stormfront? I don't think you're serious. Sounds more neocon than Old Right.
2004-05-24 20:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]I still didn't get an answer why, on a paleoconservative forum, "us organizing" yields invitations to Amer Ren, David Duke, CofCC and similar entities associated more often to Stormfront than traditional conservative boards? Not that I really need one, just an interesting dynamic. I don't consider Hitler a conservative. What did he advocate in line with paleoconservatism, smaller central governement, etc.[/QUOTE] Hilarious.
Traditional conservatism of an anti-racist. Or should I call you "Christian Nationalist"?
2004-05-24 20:41 | User Profile
What did he advocate in line with paleoconservatism, smaller central governement, etc.
Racial sovereignty, without which you can't have any of the above.
2004-05-24 21:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]Racial sovereignty, without which you can't have any of the above.[/QUOTE] And National Socialism which kills everything this country was founded on. I'm not looking for a new country...I want the original one back, US Constitution, state's rights, and all.
2004-05-24 21:27 | User Profile
A healthy awareness of the ethnic/racial differences was a part of this country's foundation. You are a coward browbeaten by pc propaganda into mental submission. A slave.
2004-05-24 21:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]And National Socialism which kills everything this country was founded on.[/QUOTE]
For example?
[QUOTE]I'm not looking for a new country...I want the original one back, US Constitution, state's rights, and all.[/QUOTE]
The original one no longer exists. Surely you've noticed that?
2004-05-25 00:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]For example?
The original one no longer exists. Surely you've noticed that?[/QUOTE] The US Contitution most certainly still exists!! Some people just don't see it to their political or financial advantage to use it.
2004-05-25 00:15 | User Profile
AOR,
What makes you think anything resembling the old republic can be restored under the current circumstances?
The chance that that will happen is zero.
Believe me, no one is more unhappy about that than me (look at my user name), but it's time to move on.
Paleoconservatism is an abject failure.
Racialism is the way forward.
2004-05-25 01:22 | User Profile
The Constitution only works if people follow it. Jewish, negro and female 'officials' in America will not follow it [they instead 'interpret' its meaning and act according to that interpretation].
There ya go, folks -- race, and gender as well, is the key.
2004-05-25 01:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]The Constitution only works if people follow it. Jewish, negro and female 'officials' in America will not follow it [they instead 'interpret' its meaning and act according to that interpretation].
There ya go, folks -- race, and gender as well, is the key.
------[/QUOTE]
Exactly right Franco.
It doesn't matter what the Consitution says.
All that matters is who has the authority to interpret and enforce its meaning.
And we don't. And the people who agree with AOR don't either.
2004-05-25 04:20 | User Profile
Real Key is to band together and gather enough recources to gather all the land in a reasonably isolated area, and then declare soveriegnty. This is the only solution. The writings of Harold Covington and others show how it can be done. But Covington was wrong to think that it could be done with bloodshed within Continental America. We must go toother shores and use our technology to defend, this will take multi-mil monetary units to bring to fruition but it SURELY CAN HAPPEN. We must BREAK away from the usa and form a new nation through strategic alliances with retired military and similar thinking people. I am SERIOUS.
2004-05-29 14:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]AOR,
Paleoconservatism is an abject failure.
Racialism is the way forward.[/QUOTE] So, you are here to convert, and save paleocons from their lost ways? At least I appreciate your honesty. You're not a paleocon at all, just hanging out here to argue with people who post about what the freaking motivation of this board is. You're using TD's bandwidth to sell your "goods" and denounce paleoconservatism. At least you're honest about it.
The neonazi/NS did the same thing to Stormfront. Black made a board for Duke supporters and the neonazi/NS (you?)took that bandwidth and filled it with falming skulls and swastikas. You guys ever think of buying your own bandwidth or posting on a board specifiaclly for your subject matter?
2004-05-29 15:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]The neonazi/NS did the same thing to Stormfront. Black made a board for Duke supporters and the neonazi/NS (you?)took that bandwidth and filled it with flaming skulls and swastikas.
You know your history, AOR.
You guys ever think of buying your own bandwidth or posting on a board specifiaclly for your subject matter?[/QUOTE]
:lol: They have here and there, but they always fade away into the sunset out of sheer boredom and ideological monotony (polinco, anyone?). They crave the least little shred of mainstream acceptance and see that Buchanan, Sobran, Francis etc. still retain some, hence their attraction to sites and boards like OD.
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showpost.php?p=82967&postcount=25[/url]
2004-05-29 17:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]You know your history, AOR.
:lol: They have here and there, but they always fade away into the sunset out of sheer boredom and ideological monotony (polinco, anyone?). They crave the least little shred of mainstream acceptance and see that Buchanan, Sobran, Francis etc. still retain some, hence their attraction to sites and boards like OD.
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showpost.php?p=82967&postcount=25[/url][/QUOTE] Black posted a good history lesson at one time. He used the word "cultists" and said he never meant SF to go in that direction...got them all stirred up for a few minutes, LOL. Sheesh, what would the ADL do if it became common knowledge that SF was never meant for swastikas, and all that violence crap probably posted exclusively by ADL operatives.
2004-05-29 17:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]Black posted a good history lesson at one time. He used the word "cultists" and said he never meant SF to go in that direction...[/QUOTE]
That's what I've been made to understand as well. Goes to show that moderating these things is a thankless job, but has to be done or things get out of hand quickly.
2004-05-29 21:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]There ya go, folks -- race, and gender as well, is the key.
------[/QUOTE] You know, the multiculturalists would agree with you perfectly on this point. Except you left out sexual preference :lol:
2004-05-30 06:17 | User Profile
Some good ideas on this thread:
I have been thinking about forming a Group. I think we need 501(c)3s much worse. We need group to save our culture and families before we can do anything else. Maybe forming your our church would be good too. But keep your doctrine to yourself.
"Creating organizations is good, but I think it might also be worthwhile to repursue some formal affiliation with some of the existing organizations out there, Am. Ren, CofCC, Rebel Army/Jim Giles, David Duke,etc. We ought to be able to at least get them to link to us I'd think. I'd think a more formal relationship to some of the existing established organizations out there would be a first step toward establishing a formal organization which would better compliment us." Amer Ren and CofCC are traditionalist/paleo conservatives to work with.
The Russian is Right: "A healthy awareness of the ethnic/racial differences was a part of this country's foundation."