← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · electrik
Thread ID: 14034 | Posts: 16 | Started: 2004-06-03
2004-06-03 05:30 | User Profile
The New Orleans Protocol, 29th May 2004 Gathering of White leaders yields historic agreement.
by Paul Fromm
On Saturday, May 29, 2004, leaders of groups from three countries struck a historical agreement about future conduct in the post-September 11 era. The protocol was the initiative of former Louisiana State representative David Duke.
The protocol pledges adherents to a pan-European outlook, recognizing national and ethnic allegiance, but stressing the value of all European peoples. The three provisions of the protocols are:
Zero tolerance for violence.
Honourable and ethical behaviour in relations with other signatory groups. This includes not denouncing others who have signed this protocol. In other words, to paraphrase the successful leftist strategy of the old Popular Front, "no enemies on the right."
Maintaining a high tone in our arguments and public presentations.
The founding endorsers of the New Orleans Protocol are David Duke of EURO and The David Duke Report, Don Black of Stormfront.org, long-time writer and activist Sam G. Dickson, John Tyndall (a founder of the British National Party, but not currently in an executive position in that party), Willis Carto of the American Free Press, Dr. Ed Fields, a National Alliance member and publisher of The Truth at Last newspaper, Kevin Alfred Strom, Media Director of the National Alliance, and David Pringle, Membership Coordinator of the National Alliance, and Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association for Free Expression.
Other groups and individuals are cordially invited to sign on and endorse the New Orleans Protocol.
COMMENTARY:
The New Orleans Protocol is, as David Duke explained, ââ¬Åa historical event.ââ¬Â The European nationalist movement across North America, with our allies in Britain and, we hope, elsewhere are committing ourselves unequivocally to the high road: no more sleazy denunciations of other nationalists on the Internet, which can only give aid and comfort to the enemy or to agents of the state; no more stealing of other groupsââ¬â¢ mailing lists or members; and, finally, no tolerance of violence.
The New Orleans Protocol in no way seeks to form an umbrella group. It in no way diminishes the independence of any of the endorsers. It does not involve ideological uniformity. All groups maintain their independence and their own particular agenda and emphases. However, all have pledged to behave in a certain constructive way, as outlined by the Protocol.
The zero tolerance position on violence does not make us into pacifists or prevent us from defending ourselves against attacks. However, all foolish talk about aggressive violence is out-of-line. Indeed, the Canadian experience with CSIS agents like Grant Bristow in the Heritage Front is that those urging violence and illegal measures are usually government agents or agents provocateurs.
The Internet is our communications salvation in the face of increasing minority control of mainline means of communication as well as increased state censorship. However, many individuals use the Internet for 'trash talk' and defamation of other groups and leaders. We donââ¬â¢t object to ideological differences or disagreements over methods. We do, however, believe that loose gossip and defamation serve only to assist our enemies. Those subscribing to the New Orleans Protocol are signalling their intention to abide by honourable standards in relations with others in the nationalist movement.
Those who do not come on board are also signaling either a discomforting ambivalence about violence or an addiction to harmful defamation of patriots in preference to constructive advocacy of their views and a concentration on the enemy.
I personally take considerable satisfaction in the New Orleans Protocol as I have promoted and practised the policy of ââ¬Åno enemy on the rightââ¬Â in Canada for the past 20 years. ââ¬â Paul Fromm
SOURCE: [url]http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=135634[/url] [url]http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2999[/url]
2004-06-04 00:11 | User Profile
The 2004 International European American Unity and Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana.
(Audio Files) [url]http://www.davidduke.com/conference/[/url]
2004-06-04 00:17 | User Profile
Does Original Dissent endorse the New Orleans Protocol?
2004-06-04 16:01 | User Profile
[font=Arial][size=3][color=#000080]This "protocol" is utter nonsense. Furthermore, it's the very height of hypocrisy. The National Alliance, via its Resistance Records, promotes extreme violence against minorities, as graphically demonstrated by its "hatecore" CD covers, which exort their listerners to gas, grind, stab, shoot, burn, and bludgeon every groid, mestizo, and jew in sight.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3][color=#000080][/color][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3][color=#000080]Really, how valid is this so-called "protocol" to disavow violence when the National Alliance sells such violence-drenched books as "The Turner Diaries" and "Hunter"? To illustrate how empty this "protocol" against violence really is, all one has to do is view this graphic for the book "Hunter" on the front page of the National Alliance website:[/color][/size][/font]
[img]http://www.natvan.com/images/books/140.gif[/img] [font=Arial][size=3][color=navy]That's a gun with a silencer, gripped in the hands of a private citizen. And the only reason for a private citizen to have a silencer on a gun is so that he can commit murders - silently. [/color][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3][color=#000080][/color][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3][color=#000080]This book, along with a sea of hate-drenched, violent-drenched sewage called "hate core" music that the National Alliance sells to two-digit IQ skinheads like a street corner drug pusher sells crack to ghetto blacks totally exposes the hypocrisy that lies behind this pompous "protocol". In truth, the REAL reason for this "protocol" is an attempt by David Duke, Don Black, and the hucksters that run the National Alliance to silence growing criticism against them, their actions, and their questionable morals. [/color][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3][color=#000080][/color][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3][color=#000080][/color][/size][/font]
2004-06-04 16:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]Does Original Dissent endorse the New Orleans Protocol?[/QUOTE]
Hello PA,
There's no official endorsement position to be had here at OD, but speaking for myself, no, I do not endorse the New Orleans Protocol. I do have enemies on the 'Right.' That doesn't mean that things have to be uncivil, mind you, but I won't pretend to agree with others when I don't or not speak up when I do. That would be hypocritical, in my opinion.
2004-06-04 17:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Hello PA,
There's no official endorsement position to be had here at OD, but speaking for myself, no, I do not endorse the New Orleans Protocol. I do have enemies on the 'Right.' That doesn't mean that things have to be uncivil, mind you, but I won't pretend to agree with others when I don't or not speak up when I do. That would be hypocritical, in my opinion.[/QUOTE] Well the Popular Front period was just a tactical phase for the record. This board is testimony to the enmities that exist among the right, and their intractability.
Hopefully the NO protocol will make some progress and do some meaningful thing, like marginalizing some of the more extreme types like Alex Linder as it appears to be doing.
2004-06-04 19:55 | User Profile
My humble thoughts.
[QUOTE]1. Zero tolerance for violence.[/QUOTE]
Seems reasonable, though perhaps too much so. On the one hand, who, exactly, is this directed at? If you're trying to build a "respectable" movement, the first step is to pretend it never was unrespectable. The slightest hint that there may have been, or that some adherents were considering it, sinks you from the get-go. It kinda reminds me of a memo circulated at a government office I once worked in: [I]People, please do not wear "do-rags" to the office.[/I] See, the very fact that you'd have to have a memo like that at all pretty much reveals your loser status.
[QUOTE]2. Honourable and ethical behaviour in relations with other signatory groups. This includes not denouncing others who have signed this protocol. In other words, to paraphrase the successful leftist strategy of the old Popular Front, "no enemies on the right."[/QUOTE]
What Tex said. Really, this is just a thinly-veiled protection racket for NA and against ol' A. Linder. Am I right? I'm always wary of statutes that are drawn up in general language but meant to be directed at specific people or groups. Couldn't they have just said, "keep criticism of other groups responsible"? Who knows. I personally think NA is worthy, but hey, what if I did think something like the "World Church of the Creator" was a pretty ridiculous outfit? And wanted to say so, under my own name or a handle? What if my saying so resulted in a net benefit for white folks and white politics?
[QUOTE]3. Maintaining a high tone in our arguments and public presentations. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, sure. Are they talking here about the swastika tailgate parties NA once upon a time threw? 'Cause if they are, I completely agree.
2004-06-04 22:02 | User Profile
KR:
I might respond to you once you establish your bona fides in this forum. I think many people right now are suspicious as to just who you are.
2004-06-04 22:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Hello PA,
There's no official endorsement position to be had here at OD, but speaking for myself, no, I do not endorse the New Orleans Protocol. I do have enemies on the 'Right.' That doesn't mean that things have to be uncivil, mind you, but I won't pretend to agree with others when I don't or not speak up when I do. That would be hypocritical, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the succinct counterargument. Have you looked at the thread on this over at Stormfront that electrik linked to? Over there, they generally seem to be of the opinion that this is a major accomplishment with much potential. Personally I have no ideological problems with the NOP, and it's probably quite productive to make a statement against advocating violence and engaging in "circular firing squads." I was wondering, though, for the older readers out there who wish to comment, is this a truly new departure or have similar statements been officially made in the past (but eventually fell by the wayside over time)?
The cynical side of me wonders whether this will have any impact on people's real day-to-day behavior. After all, unless people actually follow it, these are just nice words on paper. Kind of like the U.S. Constitution--and that document had elaborate "checks and balances" built into it. Laws are only as effective as the people who follow them. And it's hard to overcome bad habits, especially when they are egged on by group dynamics, egos, and the like. So should I be an optimist or not on this concept?
At any rate, I intend do continue as I always have, since I've never advocated violence--which is a different thing than discussing hypothetical actions revolutionary groups or (state apparati) might take in the future. Obviously, personal acts of violence on the part of individuals is useless anyway. Politics is about collective acts, and collectively the climate for what the Lefties call "direct action" has not been reached. And if you want to win friends and influence people, avoiding petty gossip and maintaining a high tone make sense anyway.
2004-06-05 15:01 | User Profile
Man. First the New Orleans Protocol, now this.
[url]http://www.nationalvanguard.org/images/news/discipline_med.jpg[/url]
I mean, NA now has an anti-Linder GRAPHIC? Am I digging in too hard on defense here? Am I seeing what's not there? Yeesh. I fully dig the sentiment here, and I definitely support NA, but I wonder. What they hey-ho is wrong with supporting ALL or MOST or MANY or at least [I]MULTIPLE[/I] pro-white groups, media or individuals? The implication seems to be that unless you join NA, you're doing nothing for the cause. I don't know how great a case could be made for that. Maybe I'm one of the few pro-Linder and pro-Taylor people out there, but near as I know, neither of these men are members of NA, and both seem to be doing a lot to reach out and change minds, albeit in their own unique ways.
2004-06-05 17:26 | User Profile
I enjoyed the Duke conference. I thought the comments on the possibilities and limits of political action were very perceptive. I trust universal health coverage is not going to become part of our agenda, however.
As for Linder, I think is just going to have to face the fact that Hitlerism is not the way to make allies in this place and at this time. I enjoy his work and humor, but he appears destined for the political periphery, if that.
2004-06-05 19:24 | User Profile
Buster, you're obviously not too familiar with the ideology of the National Alliance, or you would know that it is as "Hitlerian" as they come. Therefore, it's a bit naive of you to criticize Alex Linder for being "Hitlerian", when the foremost white nationalist organization at the David Duke get-out-of-jail party is even more so.
2004-06-06 04:07 | User Profile
I keep reading your elongated descriptive and unreadable postings and I am wondering if I am in the right forums,,,,,,,
The only ones that I am against are the Zionist and no one else, but it seems to me that many here are against anyone who is not a "white" American.
Well, I am a blond green eyes Cuban but still a Cuban,,,,,, If anyone here has a problem with that let me know.
You people are concentrating to much on the little fishes and letting the big ones get away,,,,,, don't loose your focus as to who is the real enemy is here and all over the world,,,,,,,,,I don't see any Mexican or African trying to jump the fence to go into the state of Israel but I see the Zionist taking over the world.
Something else, as long as I am piss off, many of you are posting articles that are to long and at the end talks about nothing,,,,,, like Bush likes to do,,,,, post those articles that actually give some kind of information as to the real enemies of the world.
And don't DELETE messages from those that you don't like or disagree with, after all, we are not a bunch of kids in a play room,,,,,,,and if we are then the world should be our playground and not only this forum.
If we keep talking only among ourselves and about ourselves then at the end will be fighting among ourselves for we will become our own main enemies.
"When the truth comes into the light, the lies will hide in the dark",,,,, Ponce
2004-06-06 08:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]Man. First the New Orleans Protocol, now this.
[url]http://www.nationalvanguard.org/images/news/discipline_med.jpg[/url]
I mean, NA now has an anti-Linder GRAPHIC? Am I digging in too hard on defense here? Am I seeing what's not there? Yeesh. I fully dig the sentiment here, and I definitely support NA, but I wonder. What they hey-ho is wrong with supporting ALL or MOST or MANY or at least [I]MULTIPLE[/I] pro-white groups, media or individuals? The implication seems to be that unless you join NA, you're doing nothing for the cause. I don't know how great a case could be made for that. Maybe I'm one of the few pro-Linder and pro-Taylor people out there, but near as I know, neither of these men are members of NA, and both seem to be doing a lot to reach out and change minds, albeit in their own unique ways.[/QUOTE]
Hugh, many working folk who are readers, thinker's, and are awake whites who have some travel and Multi-cult hell experience under their belts, feel as you do. I will help them, along with O.D.
2004-06-06 09:35 | User Profile
Hooey Weird, Porn including the the attack on whites in the written Pages of Playboy's Marxist existance with its evil perverted promoting articles from the begining that helped to smash our social fabric and U.S. The poster who was banned won't mention RAP, which is now in NORWAY, with Congoid Rapper's rapping on their women!
NO concern about the Rap CD's the CARR BROTHER"S owned, no alphabet cops and TV ranting about their hate training against whites, or a word about their FIENDISH Torture of 7 whites...
Media brain washed white's know all about the poor Texas Felon victim Byrd, but know nothing of the Victim's of the RAPP dancing monster's the Carr Brothers of the Wichita Massacre fame, who just did not kill and rape, but got off on Torture, humilation, rape, murder, and evil right out of John 8:44..
The media got idiot white men who had hated clitooon to cheer on the bombing of a white ORTHADOX Christian country fighting a NON WHITE, Islamo invasion!.. So now trolls and idiots that are infested at every white forum, go ahead have at it......
2004-06-06 16:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=General Rommel]Buster, you're obviously not too familiar with the ideology of the National Alliance, or you would know that it is as "Hitlerian" as they come. Therefore, it's a bit naive of you to criticize Alex Linder for being "Hitlerian", when the foremost white nationalist organization at the David Duke get-out-of-jail party is even more so.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your thoughts, General. I have little doubt that there is significant truth in what you say; but with Linder what you see is what you get. He is totally up front, openly lauding Hitlerism and the man himself in great detail almost weekly.
I am not involved in NA, and I don't read minds; but I'm sure there are Hitlerite and crypto-Hitlerite strains within it. But clearly the strategy of the organization for now is to emphasize the key issues of white nationalism and Jewish influence--issues that unite them with a much broader coalition and a broader audience, and which in turn make working with Linder problematic to say the least. That is not to disparage Linder's polemic talents which are useful on their own.
There may come a day when NAââ¬â¢s present goals are accomplished and the Nazis insist on coming to the fore. The coalitions can then dissolve and regroup along whatever lines they wish. Until that day, I expect any Nazi factions in NA to stay deep in the background and far from public view.
Regards,
B