← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Valley Forge
Thread ID: 14323 | Posts: 63 | Started: 2004-06-25
2004-06-25 22:59 | User Profile
Over on the Constitution party thread, Okiereddust asked me what an explicitly pro-White party would look like. Here are some ideas (off the top of my head). I'm sure there are many people here capable of adding to this list or suggesting why something I've included should not be listed. In my opinion, a pro-White party should support all of the following (and more):
The immediate closing of the borders; zero immigration
The immediate arrest and deportation of all illegal immigrants
The immediate militarizing of the border with Mexico until such time as an electrified fence, trench, wall, or other physical barrier can be erected to keep the Mexicans out of this country.
The immediate and unapologetic formation of a Congressional White Caucus as a counter-weight to other ethnic caucauses.
The immediate repeal of all affirmative action, set aside, and racial entitlement laws, regulations, and programs whether in place at the local, state, or federal level.
Passing legislation making it illegal for any company that wants to do business, sell products, or otherwise engage in Commerce in the United States to send any manufacturing and technical jobs overseas.
Repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all related legislation and regulations making "discrimination" illegal; supporting a humane return to segregation based on the principles of Federalism, property rights, and freedom of association
Passing legislation making it illegal for private companies to have an affirmative action policy, a "diversity" policy, or any policy that involves basing hiring, firing, and promotion decisions on any factor other than educational credentials, relevant prior experience, and merit
Passing legislation forcing all universities, public and private, to offer admission to the university and scholarships soley on the basis of grades and standardized test scores
Ending all foreign aid
Withdrawing all American troops from the Middle East and the rest of the world; returning to an isolationist, America First foreign policy; making American foreign policy around the world, but especially in the middle east, strictly neutral; under pro-White leadership, the US government would have no opinion on any issue that does not involve a direct, credible, immediate threat to the secuity of the United States
Passing legislation making it illegal for the representatives of foreign governments to lobby anyone in a public position in the United States at any level, local, state, or federal
Arresting and deporating all "dual citizens"; passing legislation making dual citizenship illegal.
Ending technology, military, and other sales and transfers to Israel, China, and other anti-American nations.
2004-06-26 00:12 | User Profile
if only...
2004-06-26 00:16 | User Profile
My revised list:
The short-term closing of the borders to immigrants from non-majority- white countries (with exceptions for Japan and whites from South Africa). The formulation of a long-term immigration policy that prohibits immigration from disturbing the racial make-up of the United States.
The arrest and deportation of all illegal immigrants.
The immediate militarizing of the border with Mexico until such time as an electrified fence, trench, wall, or other physical barrier can be erected to keep the Mexicans out of this country.
The immediate and unapologetic formation of a Congressional White Caucus as a counter-weight to other ethnic caucauses.
The immediate repeal of all affirmative action, set aside, and racial entitlement laws, regulations, and programs whether in place at the local, state, or federal level.
Repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all related legislation and regulations making "discrimination" illegal.
Passing legislation at the Federal and State level, forbidding all universities that receive government funds to use direct or indirect consideration of race in making admissions or financial aid decisions.
Ending all foreign aid to Israel and Muslim nations; ending all government humanitarian assistance for foreign nations.
Withdrawing all American troops from the Middle East and the rest of the world; returning to a multilateral policy centered on NATO and our treaties with Japan, Australia, and New Zealand; support of increased co-operation with Russia and other former Soviet states with majority white populations.
Passing legislation making it illegal for the representatives of foreign governments to lobby anyone in a public position in the United States at any level, local, state, or federal.
Ending technology, military, and other sales and transfers to Israel, China, and other anti-American nations.
Abolishment of the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the quasi-monopolies of the AMA & the American Bar Association.
2004-06-26 00:17 | User Profile
I would suggest that a platform for a White Causus within the GOP would be a better project.
2004-06-26 06:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Over on the Constitution party thread, Okiereddust asked me what an explicitly pro-White party would look like. Here are some ideas (off the top of my head). I'm sure there are many people here capable of adding to this list or suggesting why something I've included should not be listed. In my opinion, a pro-White party should support all of the following
I'd summarize majority of the points you made as anti-affirmative action.anti-civil rights. These points are pretty much what conservative Republicans used hold to. Barry Goldwater's 1964 platform for instance pretty much epitimizes them.
The other points basically reflect Buchananism in assert the need for foreign trade restrictionism and foreign policy isolationism.
These points alone are hardly any different, except perhaps slightly in degree, than what Buchanan proposed, or what the moderate paleocon organizations like Chronicles or moderate WN orgs like CoCC or AmRen would advocate. Yes, even Chronicles would go along with pretty much all of it.
Which is why the constant sniping at Chronicles, Buchanan, Am.Ren, even CoCC, (and me for pointing this out) from the WN/pro-VNN contingent always seemed paradoxical to me. Unless it is because of the
(and more)
What more? Well I note that the platform doesn't say anything about the Jewish question. It doesn't even mention segregation directly, although abolision of civil rights laws might figure in here.
So make this list complete by all means, if you have a list of items that a good WN platform should have and that they should support. An incomplete list of requirements never does people much good. Maybe if it is complete we could discuss why so many WN's feel so suspicious and hostile toward democratic, non-totalitarian organizations that advocate so much of platforms such as yours.
2004-06-26 08:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]1. The immediate closing of the borders; zero immigration[/QUOTE]
I think this is too general. We need to explicitly ban ALL nonWhite (including Jewish) immigration. I see no reason to limit immigration of Scots, Germans, etc., and in any event, exceptions would need to be made, at the very least, for legitimate White refugees from Rhodesia/"Zimbabwe," South Africa and perhaps other places.
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]2. The immediate arrest and deportation of all illegal immigrants
The immediate militarizing of the border with Mexico until such time as an electrified fence, trench, wall, or other physical barrier can be erected to keep the Mexicans out of this country.
The immediate and unapologetic formation of a Congressional White Caucus as a counter-weight to other ethnic caucauses.
The immediate repeal of all affirmative action, set aside, and racial entitlement laws, regulations, and programs whether in place at the local, state, or federal level.[/QUOTE]
These all sound good to me....
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]6. Passing legislation making it illegal for any company that wants to do business, sell products, or otherwise engage in Commerce in the United States to send any manufacturing and technical jobs overseas.[/QUOTE]
This one may may be a bit too restrictive, but I like its general direction. Certainly some steps should be taken in that direction, such as making all companies which want to bid for federal, state & local government contracts comply with such a restriction. There are also tax breaks that actually subsidize shipping jobs overseas (amazingly enough). Those need to be repealed and new tax breaks that subsidize keeping jobs in America and creating new ones (especially manufacturing & technical ones). I think any other restrictions should be much less severe when it comes to shipping jobs to Europe than to the Third World (and under NAFTA, at least until we repeal it - and I'm not sure we NEED to repeal it, but rather just kick Mexico out of it - we really can't restrict jobs from going to Canada and I'm not sure we should; despite being separate nation-states, Canada and the United States are one economy, from an organic standpoint, arguably even before the days of NAFTA).
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]7. Repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all related legislation and regulations making "discrimination" illegal; supporting a humane return to segregation based on the principles of Federalism, property rights, and freedom of association.[/QUOTE]
I'm all for that; I'd just explicitly reference the repeal of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1991 too.
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]8. Passing legislation making it illegal for private companies to have an affirmative action policy, a "diversity" policy, or any policy that involves basing hiring, firing, and promotion decisions on any factor other than educational credentials, relevant prior experience, and merit
Those sound good to me (although perhaps should be combined into one plank).
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]10. Ending all foreign aid[/QUOTE]
I think this goes too far; we ought to keep our options open in the event we wish to provide humanitarian aid to Australia in the event of a massive typhoon or whatnot. We should insist on an end to ALL foreign aid to nonWhite countries and explicitly call for a ban on aid to Israel.
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]11. Withdrawing all American troops from the Middle East and the rest of the world; returning to an isolationist, America First foreign policy; making American foreign policy around the world, but especially in the middle east, strictly neutral; under pro-White leadership, the US government would have no opinion on any issue that does not involve a direct, credible, immediate threat to the secuity of the United States[/QUOTE]
I agree with this, with the exception for allowing for a continued U.S. military presence in Canada and the Carribean. I also think we should call for negotiations for the purpose of reclaiming the Panama Canal. The Panamanians were dying for Klinton to do just that, but naturally he refused to do anything that would advance American national interests. I don't want to seize the Canal Zone by force, but I think we should determine to make it ours again.
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]12. Passing legislation making it illegal for the representatives of foreign governments to lobby anyone in a public position in the United States at any level, local, state, or federal
Arresting and deporating all "dual citizens"; passing legislation making dual citizenship illegal.
Ending technology, military, and other sales and transfers to Israel, China, and other anti-American nations.[/QUOTE]
Those sound swell to me.
2004-06-26 08:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]12. Abolishment of the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the quasi-monopolies of the AMA & the American Bar Association.[/QUOTE]
I don't support abolishing the NEA (not that it'd be a deal killer for me by any means). The problem with the NEA is that's it run by Jews, fags and Marxists (one could claim its unConstitutional, but then I don't see this platform calling for the abolition of Social Security & Medicare, for example). If it were run by White, patriotic scholars & artists, it could do a lot of good. A similar argument could be made for the NEH, although I'm not so sure an actual National Endowment for the Humanities is needed. At such a crass time in our national culture, I frankly like the idea of Federal tax dollars being used to promote Mozart and baroque painting over "Snoop Dog" and Andy Warhol.
2004-06-26 08:33 | User Profile
I agree almost completely with darkstar. my differences with vf:
a) I don't know if it would be necessary to have a Congressional White Caucus per se. I think it would be better to simply outlaw the Black and Mexican Caucuses.
On practical grounds the identity caucuses wouldn't work for whites anyway. Whites actually have legitimate differences of opinion on some matters, whereas blacks and mexicans are pretty strongly unified in their goal to loot the white man. So the black caucus displays a unity of purpose that the white caucus could not, not that this unity is desirable.
b) Valley Forge, while most of your points are sound - particularly those on immigration - one of the problems with the idea of banning all employment of foreign scientists and all investment in overseas factories is that other countries will pull their investments out of the US.
Those investments are considerable - it would cause a lot of US workers hardship if every foreign company stopped hiring US citizens and shut down their plants here. It would start a BIG trade war and be very bad for the economy. I know it sucks to hear about Americans losing their jobs, but you need to think this all the way through.
Think also about what it would mean for US companies - they couldn't sell abroad anymore once other countries started imposing similar laws. A lot of american companies have economies of scale that can't sustain themselves in a US only market, and this would lead to more bankruptcies and unemployment.
All in all I think your heart is in the right place - and you're right on most of the other issues - but you haven't thought all the way through the trade stuff.
2004-06-26 21:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]12. Abolishment of the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the quasi-monopolies of the AMA & the American Bar Association.[/QUOTE]
Good point. The NEA should go too.
2004-06-26 22:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I'd summarize majority of the points you made as anti-affirmative action.anti-civil rights. These points are pretty much what conservative Republicans used hold to. Barry Goldwater's 1964 platform for instance pretty much epitimizes them.
The other points basically reflect Buchananism in assert the need for foreign trade restrictionism and foreign policy isolationism.
These points alone are hardly any different, except perhaps slightly in degree, than what Buchanan proposed, or what the moderate paleocon organizations like Chronicles or moderate WN orgs like CoCC or AmRen would advocate. Yes, even Chronicles would go along with pretty much all of it.
Which is why the constant sniping at Chronicles, Buchanan, Am.Ren, even CoCC, (and me for pointing this out) from the WN/pro-VNN contingent always seemed paradoxical to me.
In my mind, the difference is that Goldwater era Republicans and Chronicles-style conservatives didn't and don't make their arguments explicitly in terms of White interests. That is, they didn't and don't argue that we should implement these policies because these policies are good for Whites, -- as opposed to just generally compatible with an older understanding of the Constitution. That's what distinguishes the moderate WNs from the paleocons -- their willingness to make arguments in racial terms.
On the other hand though, I firmly believe based on my reading of the literature from that period that the old Goldwater/Taft era conservatives were always implicitly racialist anyway -- even the old NR opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- but they didn't frame their arguments in racial terms because they didn't have to: the USA was over 90% White, and they always assumed it would stay that way.
Well, the picture is quite different today, as you know, yet most of the heirs to the Goldwater/Taft conservatives keep pushing their agenda in race neutral terms -- rather than adapting their arguments to today's circumstances and making the White racialism that was always implicit in old American conservatism explicit. And in my judgment this failure to make the implicit explicit is the main error the Chronicles-style conservatives make (and also the source of much of the criticism).
For example, apart from Dr. Francis, do you think anyone associated with Chronicles would support the formation of a Congressional White Caucus?
It seems to me that is essential that Whites form a race-based coalition, because at this time one of our biggests problems as Whites is that none of our elective representatives recognize that we have distinct interests apart from other groups (who also have distinct interests).
Unless it is because of the What more?
I didn't really have anything totalitarian in mind; I just listed the first 10 or so planks that came into my mind.
Well I note that the platform doesn't say anything about the Jewish question. It doesn't even mention segregation directly, although abolision of civil rights laws might figure in here.
I mentioned segregation in plank 7: "supporting a humane return to segregation based on the principles of Federalism, property rights, and freedom of association."
I don't believe a party that doesn't openly and unapologetically defend racial segregation can truly be considered pro-White, or even genuinely conservative for that matter, because the right to engage in segregation follows directly from the rights to free association and property.
Also, planks 11 - 14 are aimed largely at Jews and represent a "first attempt" if you will at grappling with the Jewish Question within an American context and countering the ability of Jews to influence American foreign policy.
My thinking is that if we or someone else can first get a party operating based on White interests that supports 1) defunding Israel, 2) banning lobbying by foreign goverments, and 3) expelling dual "citizens," that will be sufficient to get the Jews up in arms and ranting about the coming of the Fourth Reich. Consequently, the door will then be open to examing other issues within the context of "Jewish interests" versus "White interests," such as why Jews favor dual citizenship and supporting Israel in the first place. And getting people to realize that Jews have been pushing their interests qua-Jews for a long time now is the first step down the road to more radical but necessary measures.
There is no point or value in discussing such measures until there is chance they can actually be implemented.
So make this list complete by all means, if you have a list of items that a good WN platform should have and that they should support. An incomplete list of requirements never does people much good. Maybe if it is complete we could discuss why so many WN's feel so suspicious and hostile toward democratic, non-totalitarian organizations that advocate so much of platforms such as yours.[/QUOTE]
I've come to agree with you that a lot of the hostility is unjustified.
On the other hand though, I think you and some of the people on your side should concede that the non-democratic Nationalists make a strong point when they argue that it is the democratic process itself that has allowed Jews, Blacks, Latinos, and affluent Whites to use our own instututions against us (by us I mean middle American Whites and middle and lower class Whites). Consequently, from the perspective of the non-democratic/fascist/totalitarian Nationalist, the Constitution and the democratic process itself are both big parts of the problem.
And although I disagree at this time that we should abandon the Constitutional/democratic framework, I think their overall point is correct and largely unassailable. But the solution in my mind is not to abandon the Constitution framework but rather to convince our fellow Whites to return to an earlier understanding of what that framework implies: the right to segregate and "discriminate" based on the principle of free association.
2004-06-26 22:22 | User Profile
Another point well taken.
Perhaps the general principle a pro-White party should operate by is this: if an institution is currently anti-White (the NEA is a good example), it should be abolished by force unless it can be taken over permanently by people who are pro-White.
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]I don't support abolishing the NEA (not that it'd be a deal killer for me by any means). The problem with the NEA is that's it run by Jews, fags and Marxists (one could claim its unConstitutional, but then I don't see this platform calling for the abolition of Social Security & Medicare, for example). If it were run by White, patriotic scholars & artists, it could do a lot of good. A similar argument could be made for the NEH, although I'm not so sure an actual National Endowment for the Humanities is needed. At such a crass time in our national culture, I frankly like the idea of Federal tax dollars being used to promote Mozart and baroque painting over "Snoop Dog" and Andy Warhol.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-26 22:31 | User Profile
I would tend to agree given that we have a two party system. But would they even consider it? The GOP has moved far from its roots.
If it turns out to be impossible to establish a White caucus within the GOP -- and right now I'm convinced that it would be -- perhaps a call for proportional representation and abolishing the winner take all system should be a major plank of any pro-White third party.
[QUOTE=darkstar]I would suggest that a platform for a White Causus within the GOP would be a better project.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-26 22:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=truth] I think it would be better to simply outlaw the Black and Mexican Caucuses.
Actually, I think that would be a serious mistake, because the Blacks and Mexicans will work against White interests as a de facto caucus anyway.
Consequently, I think it would be better to let the Blacks and Mexicans have their caucus, and then turn around and demand a caucus for Whites as a matter of justice and fair play.
If not all Whites want to join the White caucus, fine -- that will just make demarcation points that much clearer: the White caucus would then be opposed by other Whites as well as by the Black and Mexican caucuses. And the result of that would be good for our side I think because 1) people would begin to realize exactly who the Whites are that support anti-White policies, and 2) people would be bound to notice that Blacks and Mexicans invariably operate as a block putting aside whatever differences they may have to make common cause against the White man.
b) Valley Forge, while most of your points are sound - particularly those on immigration - one of the problems with the idea of banning all employment of foreign scientists and all investment in overseas factories is that other countries will pull their investments out of the US.[/QUOTE]
My point is that we need to make answering the question "What is good for Whites" one of our overriding concerns.
If experience and the evidence show that protectionist economics will be better for most Whites, that is what we should go with. If the experience and the evidence shows that free trade policies are best, we should go with those instead.
2004-06-27 00:41 | User Profile
Just a few quick comments
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]In my mind, the difference is that Goldwater era Republicans and Chronicles-style conservatives didn't and don't make their arguments explicitly in terms of White interests. That is, they didn't and don't argue that we should implement these policies because these policies are good for Whites, -- as opposed to just generally compatible with an older understanding of the Constitution. That's what distinguishes the moderate WNs from the paleocons -- their willingness to make arguments in racial terms.
Well if you are going to criticize paleocons for not making the argument in racial terms enough, you ought to take a look at your own platform. I don't think I see any explicit racial terms there either. It would be easy enough just say the United States is a Euro-American state, created for the life, liberty and Happiness of Euro-Americans, etc. etc. But you don't do so. I think it is because at least subconsciously you realize the political and even theoritical difficulty doing this, as the paleo's do. Maybe you are more like them than you realize.
It seems to me that is essential that Whites form a race-based coalition, because at this time one of our biggests problems as Whites is that none of our elective representatives recognize that we have distinct interests apart from other groups (who also have distinct interests).
I mentioned segregation in plank 7: "supporting a humane return to segregation based on the principles of Federalism, property rights, and freedom of association."
I don't believe a party that doesn't openly and unapologetically defend racial segregation can truly be considered pro-White, or even genuinely conservative for that matter, because the right to engage in segregation follows directly from the rights to free association and property.
It is true that you mention segregation, I may have overlookedthat a little bit. But this approach "based on the principles Federalism, property rights, and freedom of association." is very much paleocon.
It may have been technically practical in the 60's, but it isn't practical now IMO. I think if you really wanted to advocate segregation today you would have to be talking about partition etc, as David Duke did. seems very much
Also, planks 11 - 14 are aimed largely at Jews and represent a "first attempt" if you will at grappling with the Jewish Question within an American context and countering the ability of Jews to influence American foreign policy.
Maybe. But I'm sure the Trisks of the world would rake you over the coals for not explicitely mentioning the "J word".
I think you are more of a paleo than you realize.
I've come to agree with you that a lot of the hostility is unjustified.
On the other hand though, I think you and some of the people on your side should concede that the non-democratic Nationalists make a strong point when they argue that it is the democratic process itself that has allowed Jews, Blacks, Latinos, and affluent Whites to use our own instututions against us (by us I mean middle American Whites and middle and lower class Whites). Consequently, from the perspective of the non-democratic/fascist/totalitarian Nationalist, the Constitution and the democratic process itself are both big parts of the problem.
And although I disagree at this time that we should abandon the Constitutional/democratic framework, I think their overall point is correct and largely unassailable. But the solution in my mind is not to abandon the Constitution framework but rather to convince our fellow Whites to return to an earlier understanding of what that framework implies: the right to segregate and "discriminate" based on the principle of free association.[/QUOTE] Well this is a broad philosophical point, which MacDonald brings up - the western preference for universally valid systems, laws, and frames of reference, a product of his individualistic nature, which of course collectestic groups like the Jews use to their advantage.
In all WN there seems to be a certain philosophical dichotomy on this question. But we can get into that later.
The most interesting thing is to take a look at this platform, and see how it compares to existing parties. It would be intersting for you to compare and contrast your platform with the [url=http://www.americafirstparty.org/docs/platform.shtml]America First Party Platform[/url] for instance, whose website Kevin O'Keefe references. My hunch is you would find very little difference between them and yours. In same ways it is even superior, they talk about education for instance (although you can't think of everything the first time, and I think did very good job coming up with this.)
Platforms of course don't make everything. Just as constitutions don't. After all a superficial reading of the constitutions of the US and old USSR show amazing similarity. But its still an interesting comparison.
2004-06-27 00:55 | User Profile
It looks like the America First Party has actually won some victories in the real world. It's tiny, but it's a start, and certainly better than nothing.
[url]http://www.americafirstparty.org/candidates/2002/[/url]
===========
Colorado Dr. Patricia L. Baker Central City At-large Alderman Florida Mr. Cameron D. Bates Port St. Lucie City Council District 3 Iowa Mr. Edward Moses Marion County Supervisor Mr. Dan Rogers State Representative District 6 Minnesota Mr. Mark Anderson Brooklyn Center City Councilman New Jersey Mr. Ken Feduniewicz US House of Representatives District 3 Ohio Mr. Jerry Martin State Representative District 14 Mr. James A. Traficant US House of Representatives District 17 Tennessee Mr. James Edwards State House District
2004-06-27 03:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]It looks like the America First Party has actually won some victories in the real world. It's tiny, but it's a start, and certainly better than nothing.
[url]http://www.americafirstparty.org/candidates/2002/[/url]
===========
Colorado Dr. Patricia L. Baker Central City At-large Alderman Florida Mr. Cameron D. Bates Port St. Lucie City Council District 3 Iowa Mr. Edward Moses Marion County Supervisor Mr. Dan Rogers State Representative District 6 Minnesota Mr. Mark Anderson Brooklyn Center City Councilman New Jersey Mr. Ken Feduniewicz US House of Representatives District 3 Ohio Mr. Jerry Martin State Representative District 14 Mr. James A. Traficant US House of Representatives District 17 Tennessee Mr. James Edwards State House District[/QUOTE]Boy, that sure is an interesting list of names! Did you get that off the AFP site? You can look up the two congressman to see if they ever ran under the AFP ticket. I'd be very surprised if anyone here has - I'm not sure what this list means. Suspect it means they said a kind word at one time to certain AFP members.
Now from what they put out, I admit they sound pretty good. Of course ready the American Renaissance site at [url]www.amren.com[/url] AmRen sounds even better. I wonder though what the people who think AmRen is a philosemtic site would think of the AFP, where Jews have always had prominent positions such as their Current chair, Dan Charles.
2004-06-27 03:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] I wonder though what the people who think AmRen is a philosemtic site would think of the AFP, where Jews have always had prominent positions such as their Current chair, Dan Charles.[/QUOTE]
Well, this is a problem with the AFP, and it probably explains this party principle:
==================
ENCOURAGE THE TRADITIONAL VALUES OF FAITH, FAMILY, AND RESPONSIBILITY
* Protect and recognize the sanctity of all human life
* Defend the traditional family unit based on one man and one woman
* Promote the primacy of parents in the lives and education of their children
* Respect the free exercise of religion
* Recognize the **Judeo**-Christian heritage of our shared values
[url]http://www.americafirstparty.org/docs/principles.shtml[/url]
=================
It turns out the AFP also has a link to Jews for The Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
Also, I just took a closer look at their platform, and while they promote plenty of sensible positions like withdrawing from the UN and throwing the UN off of American soil, they don't say anything opposing Zionism, cutting off aid to Israel (or any other nation), or maintaining neutrality in the middle east.
It could be then that the AFP is just another safety value organization that has already been subverted by Jews. Jews really are very good about covering all the bases, and as more and more people become disaffected and unhappy with the current system, they may start looking for alternatives like the AFP -- in which case their efforts and energies will be channeled in directions that don't really undermine Jewish interests.
This is why if a pro-White party is ever formed at least a de facto policy of excluding Jews is necessary in my opinion. Consequently, if such a party is ever formed, it may be necessary to make anti-Zionism and support for the Arab/Palestinan cause an explicit plank in the platform or an organizing principle so as to ensure that no Jews are tempted to join the party.
2004-06-27 04:11 | User Profile
I think I would like to add the following two planks to the original platform:
============
Complete, total, and implacable opposition to Israel, the United Nations, the World Court, the IMF, and other instruments of the New World Order.
Passing legislation making English the official langauge of the United States of America as a step toward using legislation to recognize, promote, protecte, and secure the traditional culture of America's European majority
============
Comments?
15 would discourage Jews from joining the party without anyone actually having to come out and ban Jews.
16, in conjunction with the plank calling for the creation of a Congressional White caucus, would make it clear that the goal of the party is to protect, defend, and advance the interests of the USA's historic White majority.
2004-06-27 04:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]I think I would like to add the following two planks to the original platform:
============
Comments?
15 would discourage Jews from joining the party without anyone actually having to come out and ban Jews.
I would just say implement a completely fair and even handed hands-off policy toward the Middle East to 1. remedy our unfortunate image of partisanship and bias in the region and 2. ensure that recipients of direct U.S. aid are held to the same standards of cultural, religious, and racial fairness and equality we require elsewhere in the world and in the US itself.
That should handle it. :lol:
- Passing legislation making English the official langauge of the United States of America as a step toward using legislation to recognize, promote, protecte, and secure the traditional culture of America's European majority
============
16, in conjunction with the plank calling for the creation of a Congressional White caucus, would make it clear that the goal of the party is to protect, defend, and advance the interests of the USA's historic White majority.[/QUOTE] Very good, even if WN's themselves are not as clear what this traditional culture (re Christianity) actually entails.
2004-06-27 04:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]It could be then that the AFP is just another safety value organization that has already been subverted by Jews. Jews really are very good about covering all the bases, and as more and more people become disaffected and unhappy with the current system, they may start looking for alternatives like the AFP -- in which case their efforts and energies will be channeled in directions that don't really undermine Jewish interests.
Sometimes you are positively psychic. There have been several AFP pushers right on this list I just couldn't get this across to.
This is why if a pro-White party is ever formed at least a de facto policy of excluding Jews is necessary in my opinion. Consequently, if such a party is ever formed, it may be necessary to make anti-Zionism and support for the Arab/Palestinan cause an explicit plank in the platform or an organizing principle so as to ensure that no Jews are tempted to join the party.[/QUOTE]Yes, I think a nuanced support for the Arab/Palestinian cause in general like you suggest us essential. They key is being discrete about it. There are an awful lot of right-leaning people who are with us on everything who still blanch a little bit when you talk about suporting Yasser Arafat. I would just emphasize our duty to be truly impartial in the region to reestablish our credibility there.
2004-06-27 13:31 | User Profile
I'm in general agreement with the ideas expressed. Furthermore, it's good that people are starting to discuss these kinds of details. Bitching about our problems is something we all do, yet actually trying to work out real-world solutions is much more difficult.
One thing I would definitely add to such a party platform is a rejection of most gun control. It's very important that Whites be well-armed, especially as their relative proportion in the population dwindles. I personally have little problem with background checks for felonious conduct and psychotic illness, but once you pass that check you should be able to buy just about anything you want (including things like short-barreled shotguns and belt-fed machine guns). In particular, there should be no restrictions on manufacture for civilian ownership.
Some might bristle at the thought of non-Whites getting their hands on weapons more easily under the aforementioned laws, but the truth is that Negro, Mexican, and (above all) JEWISH criminals are already able to secure outlawed weapons through the drug trade and similar organized criminal enterprises. Has everyone here heard about the JDL member who was busted in Florida? If memory serves, he had a stash of RPGs and other such weapons. I'm quite sure that the JDL has connections to the Mossad, which probably aids JDL members in securing illegal weapons.
Most racially-conscious Whites are already quite well-armed with excellent semi-auto pistols, rifles, and combat shotguns (shame on those who aren't!), but the laws are getting increasingly strict. Hence, I submit that the weapons issue is important enough to include in a pro-White party platform.
2004-06-27 14:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]I think I would like to add the following two planks to the original platform:
============
Complete, total, and implacable opposition to Israel, the United Nations, the World Court, the IMF, and other instruments of the New World Order.
Passing legislation making English the official langauge of the United States of America as a step toward using legislation to recognize, promote, protecte, and secure the traditional culture of America's European majority
============
Comments?
15 would discourage Jews from joining the party without anyone actually having to come out and ban Jews.
16, in conjunction with the plank calling for the creation of a Congressional White caucus, would make it clear that the goal of the party is to protect, defend, and advance the interests of the USA's historic White majority.[/QUOTE]
Also, VF from another thread: **[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Uhhh...there is this nation in Europe called Spain you know.
Whites, Cubans, and others of European Spanish descent will be welcome after the revolution.
Indian-blooded Hispanics, Mexicans, bean dogs, and Mestizos will not.[/QUOTE] ** So, which is it, Spanish or English? You're all over the map.
2004-06-27 18:23 | User Profile
On the contrary, I'm not all over the map at all. We're talking about different issues.
English should be the official language of the United States. That's one issue.
On the other thread, we were discussing who should be allowed into a "Whites only" nation after a hypothetical revolution -- and that's an all together different issue.
However, supposing that such a revolution were to occur in the United States, I'd say that Cuban/Spanish people of European descent should obviously be allowed into the country, since such Spanish/Cuban people are White, just like French, Germans, Russians, etc. In contrast, non-Whites will and should be barred from entering the country -- whether they are willing to learn English or not. This latter group includes Mexicans, Mestizos, Latinos, and Indian-Blooded Hispanics.
[QUOTE=All Old Right]Also, VF from another thread: ** ** So, which is it, Spanish or English? You're all over the map.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-27 19:52 | User Profile
In retrospect, suggesting a white GOP caucus was naive. Rather, I don't think we should be working on the platforms for parties or their subparts at all.
These lists are good policy statements for political organizations in the broad sense. But political candidates shouldn't have to talk about white racial interests directly. They should be able to talk about 'fairness,' 'continuity with historical American traditions,' etc. Otherwise, they tend to be too divisive in a multiracial setting.
It is true that blacks politicians will pander to blacks in their speeches, etc. However, white politicians should aim to be superior to such politicians. Also, by casting ourselves as the wiser, more objective group, whites can be more effective. --At least from my perspective on good government, which doesn't involve the US government even having to know a citizen's racial make-up.
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]I would tend to agree given that we have a two party system. But would they even consider it? The GOP has moved far from its roots.
If it turns out to be impossible to establish a White caucus within the GOP -- and right now I'm convinced that it would be -- perhaps a call for proportional representation and abolishing the winner take all system should be a major plank of any pro-White third party.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-28 00:21 | User Profile
Just to insert a little reality, an explicitly pro-white party will never go any place. If you feel the need to be political and to work outside of the Democrats and the Republicans, go support the Constitution Party. At least you won't automatically close minds by merely mentionion your party affiliation.
We've lost America incrementally. Any progress will only be made incrementally.
2004-06-28 07:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Just to insert a little reality, an explicitly pro-white party will never go any place. If you feel the need to be political and to work outside of the Democrats and the Republicans, go support the Constitution Party. At least you won't automatically close minds by merely mentionion your party affiliation.
We've lost America incrementally. Any progress will only be made incrementally.[/QUOTE]I'm not that sure about the Constitution Party - I think more is involved now than that. But I agree that a party who explitely says its main concern is "is it good for whites" will never go anywhere.
That doesn't mean however that a party can't be created that is nort very responsive to white interests. But one must speak in the currently accepted political vernacular if one wishes to gain support.
The Bolshevics in Russia did not initially campaign on a promise of establishing a dictatorship of a small group of professional revolutionaries, supported by mass terror. No, to the peasants they campaigned on a platform of "peace, bread, and land". Even to the mass of politically active Bolshevics, they campaigned only on a platform of "All Power to the Soviets" also rather inaccurate, since the Soviets after the revolution were dissolved.
The basic distinction Lenin made, between "agitation" for the masses, "propoganda" for the educatable potential leaders, and a closely held "revolutionary theory" closely held for insiders needs to be understood if WN ever hope to get anywhere. Few people really do. Some even seem deliberately disdainful of it, seemingly thinking that if estoric racial theory isn't plastered publically on party platforms on is engaged in "treason".
I've always thought that such hardline rigidity must be either the sign of political idiocy or of the A.P.
Nationally minded people need to find their own "peace, bread, and land".
2004-06-28 08:08 | User Profile
A lot of people might not openly support a pro-White party, but when they go into that voting booth and get to make their choice anonymously, they just might make the right one. There's no guarantee of that happening on a widespread basis, but who knows?
2004-06-28 09:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]The basic distinction Lenin made, between "agitation" for the masses, "propoganda" for the educatable potential leaders, and a closely held "revolutionary theory" closely held for insiders needs to be understood if WN ever hope to get anywhere. Few people really do. Some even seem deliberately disdainful of it, seemingly thinking that if estoric racial theory isn't plastered publically on party platforms on is engaged in "treason".
I've always thought that such hardline rigidity must be either the sign of political idiocy or of the A.P.
Nationally minded people need to find their own "peace, bread, and land".[/QUOTE]
I can agree with this. One thing I've always wondered about this strategy though is how in this "politically correct" environment where silence, ignorance, and fear already rules in the area of the racial and Jewish questions, how will one be able to tell apart the "insiders" from the brainwashed GOP-style sheep? Maybe we need to develop a secret handshake.
2004-06-28 14:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]I can agree with this. One thing I've always wondered about this strategy though is how in this "politically correct" environment where silence, ignorance, and fear already rules in the area of the racial and Jewish questions, how will one be able to tell apart the "insiders" from the brainwashed GOP-style sheep? Maybe we need to develop a secret handshake.[/QUOTE]Well what you are talking about I think relates to political growth in the real absence of democracy, freedom, and law, which is where the Leninist concepts and mentality of professional revolutionaries and centralized control figure in. With still substantive democracy acting I suppose these things could work themselves out in the open to some satisfaction. In their absence though, some or most of the measures above will be necessary, and I'd suspect sufficient.
Basically the also the attitude and actions of the core of comiitted revolutionaries would be crucial, and what they pushed. In Russia of course Lenin himself was key in this regards. Guiding a path between those insufficiently revolutionary and those excessively provocative, violent, and anarchistic. Fuehrerism for the nationalist movement in Ger. served the same purpose, albeit I don't think as well.
Might be useful at this point to consider what "secret handshakes" have been developed already. I get the impression that "I spit upon the work and memory of Buchanan" has become the hardcore WN secret handshake for instance, in these forums at least. Anyone continuing to defend Buchanan seems automaticaly targeted for outster, as this forum was by Harold Covington, aka "Triskelion" and Co.
2004-06-28 17:55 | User Profile
Sounds like a good party, Valley Forge. I especially like the zero immigration, english as the official language and no exporting of technology part. What would be your policy in dealing with american indians and the treaties formed with them?
2004-06-29 14:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Might be useful at this point to consider what "secret handshakes" have been developed already. I get the impression that "I spit upon the work and memory of Buchanan" has become the hardcore WN secret handshake for instance, in these forums at least. Anyone continuing to defend Buchanan seems automaticaly targeted for outster, as this forum was by Harold Covington, aka "Triskelion" and Co.[/QUOTE]
Pat Buchanan is a great guy (I voted for him in the '96 primary and the 2000 general elections, as well as having contributed $60 to to his 2000 campaign), but apparently some of my fellow White national socialists don't agree (the more fool they). You've made your point on this subject (and you're right). So how many more times are you going to beat this dead horse with that well-worn stick? Its almost like you WANT WNs to start denigrating Buchanan and paleo-cons generally, so you can get all pissed off about it again. What's to be gained by that? The anti-Zionist right needs to work together, not maximize opportunities for internal conflict.
Triskelion was Harold Covington? Covington is a low-life, in my considered opinion (the sort who thrives on internal conflict within the anti-Zionist right). Good riddance.
2004-06-29 15:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Pat Buchanan is a great guy (I voted for him in the '96 primary and the 2000 general elections, as well as having contributed $60 to to his 2000 campaign), but apparently some of my fellow White national socialists don't agree (the more fool they). You've made your point on this subject (and you're right). So how many more times are you going to beat this dead horse with that well-worn stick? I'm going to keep beating on it until some sense is knocked into them.> Its almost like you WANT WNs to start denigrating Buchanan and paleo-cons generally, so you can get all pissed off about it again. What's to be gained by that? The anti-Zionist right needs to work together, not maximize opportunities for internal conflict. Yes we need to work together, and not haggle over every little thing. But the Buchanan issue is not little. He's by far the biggest thing to hit the nationalist movement, paleo or WN. And best chance of success. If we can't come to an agreement, a productive working agreenment, over Pat and Buchananism I doubt we can come to a productive working agreement over anything.
If its really proven that we can't come to an agreement over Buchanan or someone like him in fact, there's a certain logic to the mainstream Republican position that its best for white people just to quite trying to resurrect this dead horse of Buchananism and national intersts in general and maintain the certain modus vivendi with the neocons.
Triskelion was Harold Covington? Covington is a low-life, in my considered opinion (the sort who thrives on internal conflict within the anti-Zionist right). Good riddance.[/QUOTE] Nothing definitive, but as AntiYuppie suggested, the long time internet confince artist sure fits the profile of Triskelion to a T from everything I've seen.
2004-06-29 19:19 | User Profile
PB is old and oft-defeated. His worship of Reagan is pitiful. His views on protectionism border on the fanatical. Don't attach your cart to that horse. I am sure AmCon and PB will continue to make valuable contributions to intellectual debate, but there is no movement there to be found.
WN electoral activism should center around getting anti-immigration and anti-affirmative action Republicans elected to Congress, and to State and local positions. If Bush goes, the anti-immigration issue will get some more play. If Bush wins, all bets are off.
2004-06-30 00:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]PB is old and oft-defeated. His worship of Reagan is pitiful. His views on protectionism border on the fanatical. Don't attach your cart to that horse. I am sure AmCon and PB will continue to make valuable contributions to intellectual debate, but there is no movement there to be found. He's won a thousand times more than any of the WN wannabees with megalomanic complexes who dice him.
WN electoral activism should center around getting anti-immigration and anti-affirmative action Republicans elected to Congress, and to State and local positions. If Bush goes, the anti-immigration issue will get some more play. If Bush wins, all bets are off.[/QUOTE]I see. You don't like Pat, cause you don't like third parties in general and think we should all be pubbies :lol:
2004-06-30 01:04 | User Profile
I don't really think 3rd parties are very important, no. However, this really has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
I am sorry if I say something offensive about you... idol? However, we must judge political figures by the different standards than those who merely post idle political commentary on the web.
Give me a Tancredo, a Ron Paul, hell, a Scharzeneger, over a PB any old time.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]He's won a thousand times more than any of the WN wannabees with megalomanic complexes who dice him.
I see. You don't like Pat, cause you don't like third parties in general and think we should all be pubbies :lol:[/QUOTE]
2004-06-30 01:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]I don't really think 3rd parties are very important, no. However, this really has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
It does if that's the reason you want us all to be pubbies.
I am sorry if I say something offensive about you... idol?
Uh Oh. Il Ragno sneaking back through a different avatar :lol:
However, we must judge political figures by the different standards than those who merely post idle political commentary on the web.
Like Linder? :lol:
Give me a Tancredo, a Ron Paul, hell, a Scharzeneger, over a PB any old time.[/QUOTE] Ahnold? :lol:
2004-06-30 03:49 | User Profile
What I want is for you all to vote for Republicans at the Congressional and State level; and for Libertarians and Constitution candiates at the Presidential level, or when they actually have a shot at winning.
I am not sure what you are referring to with your Linder comment. Linder is a political activist on the street: something entirely different from most of here at OD, and also entirely different from PB, Tancredo, Ron Paul, etc. Linder strikes me as rather crude and hateful, but he surely has offered a few good demonstrations/protests (and perhaps many poor ones as well; I am neither well informed about, nor much interested in, his activities).
Arnold obviously has some Jewish-related 'problems,' and he is rather Hollywood at the ideological level. But he did deny the illegals driver's licenses, and hold the line on spending. In comparison, PB accomplishes zip at the governmental level, and mires anti-immigration and small government efforts in 'little America' protectionist and isolationist rhetoric that wont fly.
While I have no objection to working with protectionist, and I certainly think we need to move toward isolationism, PB-syle frothing at the mouth rhetoric on these subjects is no way to build a mass right-wing movement--not in the US of A.
2004-06-30 07:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]Give me a Tancredo, a Ron Paul, hell, a Scharzeneger, over a PB any old time.[/QUOTE]
Schwarzenegger? Sir, you must be smoking pot (in which case, I'm going to have to insist that you share). Seriously, he's pretty good by Governor-of-California standards, but the man is a neo-con Bushite, for all practical purposes. Tancredo and Paul are great, but Schwarzenegger is no enemy of the Jews (even if he used to toy with the idea - please see the accompanying link, which contains a photo that appeared in the Dec. 7, 1987 issue of Sports Illustrated).
[url]http://www.spitfirelist.net/arnold.jpg[/url]
2004-06-30 19:40 | User Profile
'Governor-of-California standards' are the ones I was thinking of. And his stance on illegals doesn't suggest he's totally in the Bush camp.
2004-07-05 18:24 | User Profile
If true HH, it seems to me your point is a point in favor of WN/NS-style radicalism.
Because if a party that is responsive to the interests of our people will "never go any place" in the context of the established system, working within that system clearly makes no sense.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Just to insert a little reality, an explicitly pro-white party will never go any place. If you feel the need to be political and to work outside of the Democrats and the Republicans, go support the Constitution Party. At least you won't automatically close minds by merely mentionion your party affiliation.
We've lost America incrementally. Any progress will only be made incrementally.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-05 20:54 | User Profile
Speaking of political platforms, if you disregard planks 1 through 3, which don't apply to our context, and disregard plank 24, I really don't see much wrong with the original Nazi platform. Much of it seems very applicable to our situation. Go ahead and take a few minutes to read it for yourself; just be sure to substitute "White" or "American" for "German" -- you may be surprised at how much of this program you agree with yourself.
[COLOR=Blue][B][SIZE=4]The 25 point Programme of the NSDAP[/SIZE][/B][/COLOR]
The Programme of the German Workers' Party is designed to be of limited duration. The leaders have no intention, once the aims announced in it have been achieved, of establishing fresh ones, merely in order to increase, artificially, the discontent of the masses and so ensure the continued existence of the Party.
We demand the union of all Germany in a Greater Germany on the basis of the right of national self-determination.
We demand equality of rights for the German people in its dealings with other nations, and the revocation of the peace treaties of Versailles and Saint-Germain.
We demand land and territory (colonies) to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.
Only members of the nation may be citizens of the State. Only those of German blood, whatever be their creed, may be members of the nation. Accordingly, no Jew may be a member of the nation.
Non-citizens may live in Germany only as guests and must be subject to laws for aliens.
The right to vote on the State's government and legislation shall be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone. We demand therefore that all official appointments, of whatever kind, whether in the Reich, in the states or in the smaller localities, shall be held by none but citizens.
We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of filling posts merely in accordance with party considerations, and without reference to character or abilities.
We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the Reich.
All non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after 2 August 1914 shall be required to leave the Reich forthwith.
All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
We demand therefore:
The breaking of the slavery of interest
We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.
We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *
We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.
We demand that Roman Law, which serves a materialistic world order, be replaced by a German common law.
The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.
We demand the abolition of the mercenary army and the foundation of a people's army.
We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press. To facilitate the creation of a German national press we demand:
(a) that all editors of, and contributors to newspapers appearing in the German language must be members of the nation; (b) that no non-German newspapers may appear without the express permission of the State. They must not be printed in the German language; (c) that non-Germans shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing German newspapers, and that the penalty for contravening such a law shall be the suppression of any such newspaper, and the immediate deportation of the non-Germans involved. The publishing of papers which are not conducive to the national welfare must be forbidden. We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand.
The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.
The leaders of the Party promise to work ruthlessly -- if need be to sacrifice their very lives -- to translate this programme into action.
[url]http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/ASLevel_History/25pointnsdapprogramme.htm[/url]
2004-07-05 21:35 | User Profile
Excellent, VF. I endorse the 25 Points. They are much superior to any platform offered by America's two major parties.
Those earlier planks might have some application. I believe it was Buchanan who mentioned that there's some value in annexing Greenland (I can't recall if he mentioned Canada as well, but not a bad idea).
Number 8 is quite attractive, particularly when one replaces the year "1914" with "1965" to reflect the reality of what that year's Immigration Act did to flood America with Third Worlders.
Point 23 is essential, and demonstrates how sophisticated the NSDAP was in recognizing the danger of leaving the news media in the hands of aliens.
Point 24 isn't to be feared. The way I read it, it would prohibit churches from engaging in destructive, extra-religious activity such as the "charitable" importation of Somali refugees. And about engaging in combat against the Jewish-materialistic spirit, I can't help but think of the "prosperity gospel" you see all over TV where "the Word" is the route to fat wallets and fine cars. And if only Point 24 could shut down the pro-war, pro-Bush, pro-Zionist (but I repeat myself!) activities of Pat Robertson....
2004-07-05 21:54 | User Profile
You may have a point with regard to plank 24; I'll have to think about it though, as I am very reluctant as Christian to concede that it would be legitimate for the State to interfere in the affairs of the Church in any circumstances. The problem, of course, with this position is that if the State is prohibited from interfering in the affairs of the church, it opens the door for subversives like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to run amok.
Also, apart from the immigration/national identity planks and especially plank 23, the economic planks seem especially applicable to our situation, especially 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16.
Imagine a government that gives contracts and other breaks to Mom and Pop stores rather than multi-national corporations.
The founders of the NSDAP clearly saw were things were headed as early as 1919. It really is quite eye opening to read this material 85 years later.
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]Point 24 isn't to be feared. The way I read it, it would prohibit churches from engaging in destructive, extra-religious activity such as the "charitable" importation of Somali refugees. And about engaging in combat against the Jewish-materialistic spirit, I can't help but think of the "prosperity gospel" you see all over TV where "the Word" is the route to fat wallets and fine cars. And if only Point 24 could shut down the pro-war, pro-Bush, pro-Zionist (but I repeat myself!) activities of Pat Robertson....[/QUOTE]
2004-07-05 22:00 | User Profile
Despite anyone's personal feelings toward the man, Bill White's LSN platform has many excellent components:
Platform Of The Libertarian Socialist Movement
The Libertarian Socialist movement is a non-partisan movement that focuses on the following issues:
The private right to own and carry an unregulated firearm, and to use firearms in self-defense.
The elimination of all forms of income taxation.
An end to all forms of war and imperialism.
The preservation of all Constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties, including the right to habeas corpus, the preservation of free speech and assembly, the right to be secure in property, and the right to be free from torture and cruel and unusual punishment.
The elimination of usury and the end of the role of finance capital in the economy.
The restoration of the gold and silver standard.
The elimination of the corporation as an economic entity, and the end of corporate globalization.
The creation of political diversity through the protection of the rights of third party and independent political candidates and voters.
The expulsion of the United Nations from New York, and a withdrawal of the US from the UN.
Private, decentralized ownership of the media, and a breakup of all media monopolies dependent on cable, tv and radio licenses.
The elimination of the public educational system and all forms of government interference in the raising of our youth.
The elimination of the juvenile psychiatric system.
The elimination of policing forces under the control of the executive branch of the government.
The preservation of Traditional Indo-European cultural values and the promotion of Traditional religion.
2004-07-05 22:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]You may have a point with regard to plank 24; I'll have to think about it though, as I am very reluctant as Christian to concede that it would be legitimate for the State to interfere in the affairs of the Church in any circumstances. The problem, of course, with this position is that if the State is prohibited from interfering in the affairs of the church, it opens the door for subversives like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to run amok.
Also, apart from the immigration/national identity planks and especially plank 23, the economic planks seem especially applicable to our situation, especially 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16.
Imagine a government that gives contracts and other breaks to Mom and Pop stores rather than multi-national corporations.
The founders of the NSDAP clearly saw were things were headed as early as 1919. It really is quite eye opening to read this material 85 years later.[/QUOTE]
I can understand your reluctance re: 24. I've also been thinking that maybe it wouldn't be necessary to have the State specifically aim at churches, etc., since other laws would prohibit actions such as the importation of Somalis, regardless of who did this or what their motives, religious or not. Everyone knows a lot of these religious organizations are just cover for political activity anyway. Sharpton, anyone? Maybe it's possible to target the non-religious activity apart from any religious cover.
2004-07-05 22:07 | User Profile
Good point. Targeting subversive activities rather than religions or churches is probably the way to go.
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]I can understand your reluctance re: 24. I've also been thinking that maybe it wouldn't be necessary to have the State specifically aim at churches, etc., since other laws would prohibit actions such as the importation of Somalis, regardless of who did this or what their motives, religious or not. Everyone knows a lot of these religious organizations are just cover for political activity anyway. Sharpton, anyone? Maybe it's possible to target the non-religious activity apart from any religious cover.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-05 22:11 | User Profile
The only problem with the LSN platform is that doesn't call explicitly for an end to non-White immigration, though that may be implicitly included in the platform through this point: "The preservation of Traditional Indo-European cultural values and the promotion of Traditional religion."
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]Despite anyone's personal feelings toward the man, Bill White's LSN platform has many excellent components:
Platform Of The Libertarian Socialist Movement
The Libertarian Socialist movement is a non-partisan movement that focuses on the following issues:
The private right to own and carry an unregulated firearm, and to use firearms in self-defense.
The elimination of all forms of income taxation.
An end to all forms of war and imperialism.
The preservation of all Constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties, including the right to habeas corpus, the preservation of free speech and assembly, the right to be secure in property, and the right to be free from torture and cruel and unusual punishment.
The elimination of usury and the end of the role of finance capital in the economy.
The restoration of the gold and silver standard.
The elimination of the corporation as an economic entity, and the end of corporate globalization.
The creation of political diversity through the protection of the rights of third party and independent political candidates and voters.
The expulsion of the United Nations from New York, and a withdrawal of the US from the UN.
Private, decentralized ownership of the media, and a breakup of all media monopolies dependent on cable, tv and radio licenses.
The elimination of the public educational system and all forms of government interference in the raising of our youth.
The elimination of the juvenile psychiatric system.
The elimination of policing forces under the control of the executive branch of the government.
The preservation of Traditional Indo-European cultural values and the promotion of Traditional religion.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-05 22:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]The only problem with the LSN platform is that doesn't call explicitly for an end to non-White immigration, though that may be implicitly included in the platform through this point: "The preservation of Traditional Indo-European cultural values and the promotion of Traditional religion."[/QUOTE]
Excellent point. We live in an age where it's necessary to nail all these things down explicitly, since there's always a Culture Distorter out there waiting to obfuscate and subvert.
A lot of people fear "radical WN" on the grounds that it would cause some sort of unbearable or unrecognizable destruction of societal order. I tend to look at it instead as a "reversal of polarity." Sometimes it occurs to me that really a WN society doesn't have to look too different from the one we have now, all you have to do is depose the current Establishment and substitute ourselves as the elite. We already have a "managerial state" in place, and it is abrasive to us because it doesn't serve us, it serves non-whites.
What if we just keep everything the way it is, but just "reverse" it so that we're the ones running the apparatus instead of "Them": for example, as Kevin suggested earlier in the thread, take the National Endowment for the Arts and get rid of the Mapplethorpe-style exhibits and substitute instead a tribute to the works of Arno Breker. Wherever you find a WalMart, find "Mom and Pop stores," etc. :lol: Right now, if you express pro-White sentiments, you get hounded and you could lose your job, etc. Switch that around and by the same institutions and mechanisms, one day when fools express the ideas of "racial equality," they'll be hounded and lose their jobs. Perfect reversal. When you go to universities, you now find courses on "The Feminist Experience." Instead, you'll find "Old Icelandic 101."
And so on. In some ways that's radical, because it turns our current "day into night," but at the same time, even when it's dark, everything is still in the same place that it was when the lights were on.
2004-07-05 22:59 | User Profile
Don't you think maybe whites would have better lives if we didn't have to shove our culture down other people's throats?
In any case, all we need is a level playing field to succeed. Politically, this is easier to achieve than the reversal you propose. Yes, insofar as there is a state appartus that is difficult to do away with, we obviously want it white- friendly. But the NEH or the NEfA can go. So can the EEOC, which seems to largely employ non-whites as it is.
If you need a government trough around, the tried-and-true right wing answer is: military spending. (Note that you can add lots of highly tangential research funding under that heading, if you care to.)
2004-07-05 23:05 | User Profile
Valley Forge,
I must disagree with 8 and 9. You can for repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet you want to out law "discrimination." 8 and 9 are Ward Connerly/David Horowitz neocon type planks.
[QUOTE]8. Passing legislation making it illegal for private companies to have an affirmative action policy, a "diversity" policy, or any policy that involves basing hiring, firing, and promotion decisions on any factor other than educational credentials, relevant prior experience, and merit
Once discrimination is legal; private companies and schools with pro-white discrimination will greatly out perform those that are fill with mexicans and afros. And folly of PC will in plain view. If a marxist wants to fill his payroll with Afro and build his factory in washington dc let him.
2004-07-05 23:27 | User Profile
Faust, Just to clarify, I don't want outlaw "discrimination."
On the contrary, a major element of my hypothetical pro-White platform is defending the right of Whites to "discriminate" and "segregate" based on private property rights and the right to free association.
As such, you probably have identified a legitimate contradiction in my platform.
Good point.
[QUOTE=Faust]Valley Forge,
I must disagree with 8 and 9. You can for repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet you want to out law "discrimination." 8 and 9 are Ward Connerly/David Horowitz neocon type planks.
Once discrimination is legal; private companies and schools with pro-white discrimination will greatly out perform those that are fill with mexicans and afros. And folly of PC will in plain view. If a marxist wants to fill his payroll with Afro and build his factory in washington dc let him.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-05 23:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]Don't you think maybe whites would have better lives if we didn't have to shove our culture down other people's throats?
Culture, as transmitted through public and private media, will always propagate. Which would you rather have: the current MTV, or the future "White Viacom" that Alex Linder once mentioned? [And for the anti-Linderites, no one says that the "White Viacom" has to be as rough and gruff in its content as the current VNN. I would imagine that lots of wholesome programming is to be had, much like the original Disney which produced "The Song of the South" (which is now banned as being "un-PC")].
In any case, all we need is a level playing field to succeed. Politically, this is easier to achieve than the reversal you propose. Yes, insofar as there is a state appartus that is difficult to do away with, we obviously want it white- friendly. But the NEH or the NEfA can go. So can the EEOC, which seems to largely employ non-whites as it is.
A level playing field? How libertarian and tolerant. I don't want a "level playing field" with the multiracialists, egalitarians, and one-worlders. Why would I want to co-exist equally with them? I want to see them defeated and eliminated and barred from public life, totally and permanently and forever. Why would I be "fair" to our enemies? Have they been "fair" to us?
If you need a government trough around, the tried-and-true right wing answer is: military spending. (Note that you can add lots of highly tangential research funding under that heading, if you care to.)[/QUOTE]
The only problem with that one is that I'm what they call an "isolationist." The current military we have is configured to project American power overseas to police its Empire. Under a healthier regime, one graced by "amplified Buchananite tendencies," there would be no need for such projection. In fact, I'd be inclined to advocate that the instruments of such projection be dismantled (scrap the aircraft carriers), to make it harder should "the pendulum swing back" and more imperial-minded elements ever take the helm. I have a lot in common with the Old Left in this regard--slash the hell out of the military budget, and direct what remains toward guarding the integrity of the borders and coasts (the borders and coasts of the U.S., not Taiwan or Kuwait or the-foreign-country-of-the-month, that is).
2004-07-05 23:44 | User Profile
Which is why "fairness" should never be a consideration in politics (except perhaps in so far as paying lip service to the notion can help one obtain power).
Great point.
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]Why would I be "fair" to our enemies? Have they been "fair" to us? [/QUOTE]
2004-07-05 23:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Which is why "fairness" should never be a consideration in politics (except perhaps in so far as paying lip service to the notion can help one obtain power).
Great point.[/QUOTE]
As is yours re: lip service. You clearly understand the need for realpolitik. This is why I like the methods David Duke deploys when he "turns it all around" and uses the phrase "Jewish supremacism."
2004-07-06 11:05 | User Profile
'Which would you rather have: the current MTV, or the future "White Viacom" that Alex Linder once mentioned?' Obvious false dichtomy. Typical sales technique of neo-Nazi's and other nuts cases serving Judea.
'A level playing field? How libertarian and tolerant. I don't want a "level playing field" with the multiracialists, egalitarians, and one-worlders. Why would I want to co-exist equally with them? I want to see them defeated and eliminated and barred from public life, totally and permanently and forever. Why would I be "fair" to our enemies? Have they been "fair" to us?' I think there are some Greek tragedies you might want to read. As to why you should want to co-exist equally with others: for one, it does avoid a lot of troubling problems having to do with power-mad 'pro-white' statists redefining you into the 'enemy camp.'
'Under a healthier regime, one graced by "amplified Buchananite tendencies," there would be no need for such projection.....' You have heard of nuclear and biological weapons, right?
2004-07-06 17:37 | User Profile
Much has been said about reforms in the legislative/executive branches of the government. That said, we also need to think about reforming the tyrany of judicial branch and the multitude of unelected tyrants who harass/control the sheeple.
Case in point is what happened to Proposition 187 in Mexifornia a few years ago. All the hard work by the people who got Prop 187 passed went down the sewer by the unelected black robed tyrant (Federal Judge) who ruled that Prop. 187 was unconstitutional. You can bet that this piece of dung only knows of the constitution what he heard about it from his Marxist professors at the brain laundry while he was getting his "degree in law".
Bring back the tar and feathers!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Or read about this case, just another day for the just-us folks:[url]http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=8104[/url]
2004-07-06 17:39 | User Profile
[url]http://www.etherzone.com/2004/beam070604.shtml[/url]
2004-07-06 23:23 | User Profile
Serious question:
What is your main evidence non-Whites would ever agree to give up the priviledges they enjoy under the current regime and co-exist equally with Whites?
[QUOTE=darkstar]As to why you should want to co-exist equally with others: for one, it does avoid a lot of troubling problems having to do with power-mad 'pro-white' statists redefining you into the 'enemy camp.'[/QUOTE]
2004-07-06 23:39 | User Profile
There is one and only one way around this difficulty: make sure the power mad statists are people who agree with you.
[QUOTE=darkstar] As to why you should want to co-exist equally with others: for one, it does avoid a lot of troubling problems having to do with power-mad 'pro-white' statists redefining you into the 'enemy camp.'[/QUOTE]
2004-07-06 23:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]'Which would you rather have: the current MTV, or the future "White Viacom" that Alex Linder once mentioned?' Obvious false dichtomy. Typical sales technique of neo-Nazi's and other nuts cases serving Judea.
'A level playing field? How libertarian and tolerant. I don't want a "level playing field" with the multiracialists, egalitarians, and one-worlders. Why would I want to co-exist equally with them? I want to see them defeated and eliminated and barred from public life, totally and permanently and forever. Why would I be "fair" to our enemies? Have they been "fair" to us?' I think there are some Greek tragedies you might want to read. As to why you should want to co-exist equally with others: for one, it does avoid a lot of troubling problems having to do with power-mad 'pro-white' statists redefining you into the 'enemy camp.'
'Under a healthier regime, one graced by "amplified Buchananite tendencies," there would be no need for such projection.....' You have heard of nuclear and biological weapons, right?[/QUOTE]
Pointing out "false dichotomies" is one of the defects of the "rational" libertarian mindset--it seeks to attach moral weight to the tools of logic in the intellectual realm as well as "peaceful exchange" in the economic realm.
If those Greek tragedies are applicable to anyone here, then that's more evidence that human nature does not change. It is not "perfectible," and there never will be a utopian "harmony of interests" of all individuals peaceably trading their wares.
The "rational" and "just" will always be trumped by Will and Power, and the discourses these weave (the aforementioned "sales techniques"). The State will never disappear, although such hierarchical institutions will likely change their shape across different societies and different time periods. At root, you'll always have the "power-mad;" they surface in every ideological camp. They usually rise to the top of a society, as well. Bush and Cheney (or more accurately the camp of neocons behind the scenes) aren't power mad? Saddam wasn't power-mad? The trick, therefore, is to make sure your group and your interests win out in this no-holds-barred competition. For surely, someone's will, so it may as well be yours. And it is just such a competition, even when it's given pretty window-dressing like "democratic elections."
As for biological and nuclear weapons, Costa Rica and Switzerland don't have to worry about these to any significant degree, since they have relatively inoffensive foreign policies. America reaps what it sows.
2004-07-06 23:50 | User Profile
I do not think non-whites are all that jealous of their priviledges. Even the blacks would give them up--if only we were to tell them that we will no longer tolerate seeing such priviledges being doled out.
Indeed, it is only the left's white Gentiles and Jews who remain in the way of achieving the goal I propose. They can either accept what is fair, or be punished accordingly.
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Serious question:
What is your main evidence non-Whites would ever agree to give up the priviledges they enjoy under the current regime and co-exist equally with Whites?[/QUOTE]
2004-07-07 01:51 | User Profile
why are you even saying things on an internet forum where nobody will read them. We have been relegated to this state, this is the condition of our freedom. We have no frreedom, and we have no possible way of changing that fact. Blood can always be drawn. We cannot converse this way. I cannot continue further . That would make me liable to be raided by Government Troops aand shot dead. Guess why all the best scientists are dead. I think we have to fight fire with fire.. But unfortunately it won't come from us. China can do it. Thank God.
2004-07-07 02:00 | User Profile
Even though no one here has proposed violence, terrorism, or revolution, you may very well be right ED.
This thread might be used to put us all in jail one day.
Who cares that no one has proposed violence? ZOG's agents sure don't, and even if they did, they don't play by the rules anyway.
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]why are you even saying things on an internet forum where nobody will read them. We have been relegated to this state, this is the condition of our freedom. We have no frreedom, and we have no possible way of changing that fact. Blood can always be drawn. We cannot converse this way. I cannot continue further . That would make me liable to be raided by Government Troops aand shot dead. Guess why all the best scientists are dead. I think we have to fight fire with fire.. But unfortunately it won't come from us. China can do it. Thank God.[/QUOTE]