← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · All Old Right
Thread ID: 14486 | Posts: 17 | Started: 2004-07-09
2004-07-09 02:52 | User Profile
I keep seeing posts about what members here want to kill each other over. Has anyone every made a list that we are mostly in agreement on? Or, is the white party platform post as close as it's ever going to get. Militant nutcase or nothing?
2004-07-09 04:48 | User Profile
First off, I'd note that disagreement among extreme rightists is a sign of vigor on this sign of the political spectrum.
But seriously, aside from getting rid of affirmative action for non-whites, I am not sure if there is a single political goal most agree on at OD. At the social level, when it comes to issues such as white women having intercourse/kids with non-whites, I think we also have some agreement. And on the general point that whites are being treated wrongly....
2004-07-09 08:02 | User Profile
How about ending immigration? Flushing out the illegals and other undesirables. Stop sending jobs and technology overseas while boosting their economy and destroying our own. They didn't earn their economic status. Realizing China is an enemy amongst other nations. That's a start.
2004-07-09 11:50 | User Profile
I agree with many of the issues that Darkstar and Solid mentioned. However, I think that the single most important thing we need to do is to make it again acceptable (dare I say respectable?) to consider the interests of whites as a group. There are many worthy single issues, such as stopping mass immigration, but until those can be openly defended by arguing in favor of white survival, we are just working in an ad hoc, piecemeal fashion. Which is, of course, better than nothing. I think having an unapologetic conception of group interests, along with Christianity, need to be the 'things we agree on,' because they are the most important. I have certain economic disagreements with Darkstar, and I would disagree with Solid that China is necessarily our enemy, but these considerations are all secondary. I still think of all of us as being on the same side.
2004-07-09 15:32 | User Profile
However, I think that the single most important thing we need to do is to make it again acceptable (dare I say respectable?) to consider the interests of whites as a group.
Well said. Once that primary goal is accomplished, all the other issues will become a whole lot easier to resolve.
As an aside, this election may very well be the one that wakes up a critical mass of Whites that they simply do not have a voice left in the political process. Neither "respectable" party pays any more than lip service to the interests of White Americans. Big news flash I know, but there are still some of our folk who think the Republicans will save the day and I hope that they are disabused of that notion this time around by the GOP higher-ups, who seem wedded to the "where else are they (Whites) gonna go?" strategy this year. The latest nauseating spectale of Dubya gibbering in Spanish to LULAC is proof positive that this is the route they're going.
Funny how 70% of the population was disenfranchised without noticing a thing. Here's hoping they start to notice.
2004-07-09 17:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]First off, I'd note that disagreement among extreme rightists is a sign of vigor on this sign of the political spectrum.
But seriously, aside from getting rid of affirmative action for non-whites, I am not sure if there is a single political goal most agree on at OD. At the social level, when it comes to issues such as white women having intercourse/kids with non-whites, I think we also have some agreement. And on the general point that whites are being treated wrongly....[/QUOTE]I'm not sure if its just social issues. Really we have pretty widespread agreement on a number of things. Not just basic things like immigration levels are too high and multiculturalism runs amok, but derivative conclusions such as jewish organizations and interests being too powerful in this country.
Its when people start trying to settle on ultimate causes and explanations in a dogmatic way that we have problems. For instance when NS's attribute jewish power to Christianity and say it must be abolished before any real progress can be made, all the agreement up to know is lost. Or when people ask, if jewish power is bad, are all organizations that fail to speak out or oppose it (like Chronicles) equally bad?
It seems to me these general WN tendencies toward dogmatism is what prevents agreement. Which is why we discuss these things so frequently here.
2004-07-09 17:46 | User Profile
Well I certainly agree that, as a group, Jews are way too powerful in this country (and in the world). I just wasn't sure if all the paleocons thought this.
However, all the 'Christianity is just Judaism' posters at OD seem to be gone, so I think laying the finger at WN for disagreement on this one is off base.
(Okie - Sorry - I hit the edit button by mistake again. Let me know if I didn't restore it properly)
2004-07-09 20:25 | User Profile
Well I certainly agree that, as a group, Jews are way too powerful in this country (and in the world). I just wasn't sure if all the paleocons thought this. They almost all would agree privately and in a discrete way publically with this. The power of the ADL and other liberal jewish organizations is something that everyone in the conservative movement except the most hardcore neocons can agree upon.
However, all the 'Christianity is just Judaism' posters at OD seem to be gone, so I think laying the finger at WN for disagreement on this one is off base. I just used that as one example. Yes the 'Christianity is just Judaism' posters are gone, and frankly an awful lot of the disagreement. If people like you or AOR think its bad now, you should have seen the reaction if you'd posted what you'd written last year.
However, although they've gone, alot of the positions they championed such as "the failure of paleoconservatism" motif, etc., remain. I think that'swhat you're seeing.
2004-07-09 20:45 | User Profile
Quantrill, you're right that white interest should be made a priority. But I believe that it should be done while eliminating the illegals and other undesirables. History has shown us that while a foreign influence exist within that it will grow and displace the home culture. As for why I say China is an enemy, I believe that China sees us an enemy first and foremost. They send their people and their culture here and form pocket societies which bustle with illegal activity(isn't it odd how there are so many "China Towns in the world?). They steal our technology, dump products into our markets but all of this is known. I just see them as a threat. The east has never liked the west.
2004-07-09 20:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]I keep seeing posts about what members here want to kill each other over.[/QUOTE]
Yes, you've certainly indulged in a few of those posts yourself.
First off define "White". As I've previously found out so explicity from All Old Right, people from, or descended from, Spain are not regarded as Whites in his book and are also nothing but filthy race-mixers to boot.
I'm wondering if French, Italian, Greeks, Serbians, Portuguese would pass AOR's "Aryan" purity test and be welcomed as White people, worthy of inclusion, or will they get the "Spanish treatment" too?
Maybe you're for "Aryan" purity tests as a prerequisite for admittance to the movement?
This could be the beginning of a beee-you-tee-full relationship!
2004-07-09 23:36 | User Profile
I in many ways agree with this 'failure of conservativism' thesis, even as I consider paleocons to be basically the only good allies that non-paleo white racialists and libertarians have got. It's a pretty ill-defined thesis though, just like 'paleoconservatism.
Nonetheless--liberation from the 'conserative' label is a wonderful thing, and one with a lot of marketing potential. So to does sticking with the label. That is all fine.
2004-07-10 19:59 | User Profile
I think most of us would agree that Christianity and Patriotism belong on top of the agenda.
Western Civilization MUST be preserved. Multiculturalism should go.
And Kevin MacDonald is certainly up to something. :thumbsup:
2004-07-10 20:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]I think most of us would agree that Christianity and Patriotism belong on top of the agenda. :thumbsup:[/QUOTE]
Patriotism, authentic patriotism, sure. Loyalty to and love for one's own, not simply flag-waving. (Especially when perhaps that flag NO LONGER represents one's own)
Christianity, maybe, but not at the "top of the agenda." I don't care what religion someone observes, or if he observes no religion.
2004-07-11 22:05 | User Profile
If I could get 5 million people who supported 1) stopping immigration until we can get it all sorted out, and a complete revamp of INS and border patrol(meaning having them actually protect the US borders) 2) overturn Roe v. Wade and return the issue to the states. 3) Reverse as many federal gun laws as possible 4) Make an actual social security fund for SS taxes and don't touch it for any other reason. 5) A unified political party of at least 5 million that was far better for freedom, limited federal government, protecting US borders and culture, and actually correctly applying the US Constitution more than any party operating in the US for the past 50 years...I'd take it.
I'd take it, even if I couldn't mention one thing about white rights. And, that would do more for the "whites" than all of the flyers, articles, and speeches over the past 20 years.
I know most here seem not to agree with a policy first approach, but this magical unselfish enlightenment of the masses everyone is waiting for ain't gonna happen.
2004-07-11 22:11 | User Profile
But, that doesn't mean I don't consider WN allies on some points. I see signs that most of you would support limiting immigration and such or a candidate that supported those issues if the situation came up...even if he didn't say and do exactly as you might want. And, that'll do.
2004-07-12 00:34 | User Profile
[quote=darkstar]I in many ways agree with this 'failure of conservativism' thesis, even as I consider paleocons to be basically the only good allies that non-paleo white racialists and libertarians have got.
It's a pretty ill-defined thesis though, just like 'paleoconservatism.'
If you think 'paleoconservatism' is ill-defined at least it gas some definition, something I can't say about your ill-defined coalition apparently of "non-paleo white racialists and libertarians"
[quote=darkstar]Nonetheless--liberation from the 'conserative' label is a wonderful thing, and one with a lot of marketing potential. So to does sticking with the label. That is all fine. You talk like a marketer, apparently forgetting the first requirement of marketing - you have to have something to market[quote=darkstar]We need to market to different kinds of individuals. But market what?
Your ill-defined coalition, united by noyt much more than an inablity to get along with individuals in the existing political establishment, (and without, for that matter) isn't the best hope of a stable political movement, or movement of any sort.
2004-07-12 01:58 | User Profile
No, I wasn't talking about a coalition, simply stating that both libertarians and white racialists have reason to see paleos as allies.
As to why you think paleoconservatism is better defined than libertarianism, I have no idea. Concerning 'white racialism,' I think I have defined it pretty clearly on this board--championing the interests of the white race--but maybe you didn't catch that definition.