← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · SARTRE
Thread ID: 15493 | Posts: 33 | Started: 2004-10-28
2004-10-28 16:33 | User Profile
Quantrill,
More then just dead-on! Posted to our Immigration Page on BATR. Seldom write on immigration, since it should be a self-evident issue.
Will test the courage of some editors and do an essay based upon this article. Wonder if they will publish?
SARTRE
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Sartre, You just barely beat me to posting this excellent article by Dr MacDonald. The entire piece is worthwhile, but I would like to point to a couple of paragraphs that I think are particularly important.
This diagnosis is spot-on.
This is such a compelling way of explaining this concept that I think any halfway open-minded person would find it difficult to dismiss. Indeed, the tone of this article is so calm and reasoned, and the arguments so well-presented, that I am thinking of spreading this one around a bit.[/QUOTE]
2004-10-29 15:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SARTRE]This "universal nationalism" would allow people the right to live in an ethnostate that would protect their ethnic interests—and therefore, by extension, the genetic interests of the vast majority of the human race.[/QUOTE]
This is a very important article by Dr. MacDonald and I'm thrilled to see VDARE running it. I still remain firmly convinced that immigration is the key galvanizing issue onto which we must hitch our wagon in order to realize any kind of success in the political and/or cultural arena. It's an issue that our people see and feel every day when they leave their homes and neighborhoods. The unease we feel in our bones whenever we come into contact with foreigners is perfectly natural and right there is where we should begin and perhaps end our agenda.
Already we've got all the resources we need to support and make our arguments from the social sciences to the theological. The question to my mind is where we start devoting our time, energy and money right now to realize the most gain in the years to come.
I believe this is within the Republican party at the state and local levels, getting full square behind men like Tancredo and trying to build and flesh out his nascent organization in Congress. Start identifying potential candidates at the local levels of state government that are solid on immigration and running them in Republican primaries. Quit worrying about the presidency and even senators, focus on the house of reps. and state reps.
No doubt our own elites have betrayed us and I don't see that changing until their hand is forced. Therefore we have to build this thing from the ground up. Immigration is the issue and that's where we need to be out in force. The good news is that God's divine nature is on our side in this fight.
2004-10-29 18:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]This is a very important article by Dr. MacDonald and I'm thrilled to see VDARE running it. I still remain firmly convinced that immigration is the key galvanizing issue onto which we must hitch our wagon in order to realize any kind of success in the political and/or cultural arena. It's an issue that our people see and feel every day when they leave their homes and neighborhoods. Not everywhere. Being in south Texas it is something you are in contact with a little more than most. Many runaday Americans still seem content to deal with the issue like they always have - by moving to the suburbs/a little further away, etc. Others closer to the issue have defeatist attitudes, such as Californians.
The unease we feel in our bones whenever we come into contact with foreigners is perfectly natural and right there is where we should begin and perhaps end our agenda.
End? Perhaps. Once started on the highway though, I am not sure we can say exactly where it may lead. It may be a long journey.
Already we've got all the resources we need to support and make our arguments from the social sciences to the theological. The question to my mind is where we start devoting our time, energy and money right now to realize the most gain in the years to come.
I believe this is within the Republican party at the state and local levels, getting full square behind men like Tancredo and trying to build and flesh out his nascent organization in Congress. Start identifying potential candidates at the local levels of state government that are solid on immigration and running them in Republican primaries. Quit worrying about the presidency and even senators, focus on the house of reps. and state reps.
You hit upon the key thing which paleo's, especially at this level lack.
I've been told by people in a position to know that, although paleo's like to bellow about the stupidity and intellectual laziness of the mainstream conservatives, they aren't a whole lot different really from them or the mainstream masses. They like to whine the masses sit around and watch TV all the time, but they really don't seem a whole lot different. All the attention we seem to give to our opinions about Hannitty and O'Reilly seem a case in point.
Most paleo's lack any sense or understanding of effective political strategy. You put forth one avenue here with some chances for effectiveness I'd think, but it would need quite a bit more detail I would think to really have a chance of effectiveness. However I doubt even this basic outline will achieve much notice from the peanut gallery. We'll probably contnue to be dominated by questions like "Vote for who, Nadar. Kerry, Bush or the Constitution Party" as if the world is holding its breath waiting on the outcome of our few votes.
Good suggestions Tex. Just to caution you though, in cyberspace as elsewhere most good deeds are just ignored, and those that aren't rarely go unpunished.
2004-10-29 18:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Not everywhere. Being in south Texas it is something you are in contact with a little more than most. Many runaday Americans still seem content to deal with the issue like they always have - by moving to the suburbs/a little further away, etc. Others closer to the issue have defeatist attitudes, such as Californians.
You may well be right as my perspective is usually limited to my southern regionalism. Although I do read of folks in the mid-western states being affected by immigrant labor and Tancredo himself is from Colorado. That's a pretty broad region if you ask me. California is, well, California. I don't expect much of anything positive for our side out of there.
End? Perhaps. Once started on the highway though, I am not sure we can say exactly where it may lead. It may be a long journey.
Yes, I expect and hope it will branch out and grow. But immigration is the wedge issue. The cornerstone if you will.
You hit upon the key thing which paleo's, especially at this level lack.
Maybe the identifiable paleos lack it, but talk to a neighbor about immigration. I've never met a soul, at least in my area of the country, that thinks our nation being overrun by foreigners is a good thing. Maybe that reflects the company I keep :), but I just don't meet anyone of my people that believe that no matter their beliefs on other issues of the day like foreign policy, taxes, etc. In other words, amongst us EuroAmericans I think we can find a real common purpose there that can serve well a greater political and cultural movement that could hopefully one day reclaim the culture.
Most paleo's lack any sense or understanding of effective political strategy.
Yes, undoubtedly. But there are some immigration groups that are already trying to do these things. To my mind, all we need to do is plug into them and mainstream our hate. :) No sense reinventing the wheel and that's why I say, politically speaking, stay and work within the existing GOP structure.
Good suggestions Tex. Just to caution you though, in cyberspace as elsewhere most good deeds are just ignored, and those that aren't rarely go unpunished.[/QUOTE]
Well, I can't see why anyone would hesitate at having their name affiliated with Tancredo's organization or any of the anti-immigration PACs. These things are fairly mainstream nowadays, at least from the perspective of where we are now which is for all practical purposes, political/cultural Siberia.
2004-10-29 19:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]You may well be right as my perspective is usually limited to my southern regionalism. Although I do read of folks in the mid-western states being affected by immigrant labor and Tancredo himself is from Colorado. That's a pretty broad region if you ask me. California is, well, California. I don't expect much of anything positive for our side out of there.
No doubt, the problem is nationwide, if more acute in say San Antonio than Seattle.
Yes, I expect and hope it will branch out and grow. But immigration is the wedge issue. The cornerstone if you will.
Its very important of course, but also of course is just part of the larger situation. Its been there a long time, and I don't think it will be solved on its own
Maybe the identifiable paleos lack it, but talk to a neighbor about immigration. I've never met a soul, at least in my area of the country, that thinks our nation being overrun by foreigners is a good thing. Maybe that reflects the company I keep :), but I just don't meet anyone of my people that believe that no matter their beliefs on other issues of the day like foreign policy, taxes, etc. In other words, amongst us EuroAmericans I think we can find a real common purpose there that can serve well a greater political and cultural movement that could hopefully one day reclaim the culture.
Find it - shute -its always been there. The key is doing something with it esp re: "the greater political and cultural movement".
Yes, undoubtedly. But there are some immigration groups that are already trying to do these things. To my mind, all we need to do is plug into them and mainstream our hate. :) No sense reinventing the wheel and that's why I say, politically speaking, stay and work within the existing GOP structure.
They're doing some of these things. But in the end our purpose is much greater re: "the greater political and cultural movement" rather than just narrow organizations for endless lobbying over immigration law detailia. Not this isn't important, but eventually our success will be gauged by the degree it is turned to broader purposes and issues. Which no doubt these organoization will reject, as they are more controversial.
Well, I can't see why anyone would hesitate at having their name affiliated with Tancredo's organization or any of the anti-immigration PACs. These things are fairly mainstream nowadays, at least from the perspective of where we are now which is for all practical purposes, political/cultural Siberia.[/QUOTE] Any organization which you wouldn't hesitate having your name associated has organational dynamics which at least on the surface are quitre innocuous to the powers that be.
If there is a more important reason to justify involvement (often not an insignificant investment in time and money, detracting from other purposes) the key will be turning these organizations to a broader purpose. And that's where real knowledge of political strategy is required.
Groups like the Center for Cultural Conservatism as I've discussed have put forth such plans in the past, as we've discussed. Maybe this might be a starter for discussions on what effective political strategy might involve. I don't recall too much interest at the time though, actualy, but maybe its worth another try.
2004-10-29 19:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]No doubt, the problem is nationwide, if more acute in say San Antonio than Seattle.
Well I say you gotta dance with who brought you. If immigration only provides mileage in the southern and western states, then make it THE issue there. Look for something else in other places, but again, to my mind immigration is a litmus test kind of issue for the entire nation.
Its very important of course, but also of course is just part of the larger situation.
Yes, but I don't want to get ahead of ourselves. Course we're just shooting the bull here, but we need to look at small, achievable steps. Sweat the stuff we can have some control over and that means local, local, local...
Find it - shute -its always been there. The key is doing something with it esp re: "the greater political and cultural movement".
Again, I think we can cross that bridge when we get there. Right now it's not even in sight.
They're doing some of these things. But in the end our purpose is much greater re: "the greater political and cultural movement" rather than just narrow organizations for endless lobbying over immigration law detailia. Not this isn't important, but eventually our success will be gauged by the degree it is turned to broader purposes and issues. Which no doubt these organoization will reject, as they are more controversial.
But it's all about numbers, Okie. You know that. You get the numbers and you can't be ignored. Look at the evangelicals and the Republican party, say, 1984 through 1992. There's your model right there.
If there is a more important reason to justify involvement (often not an insignificant investment in time and money, detracting from other purposes) the key will be turning these organizations to a broader purpose. And that's where real knowledge of political strategy is required.
That's the real paleo weakness right there, sure. But to my mind there's a whole lot of work that must be done before we start worrying about that.
Groups like the Center for Cultural Conservatism as I've discussed have put forth such plans in the past, as we've discussed. Maybe this might be a starter for discussions on what effective political strategy might involve. I don't recall too much interest at the time though, actualy, but maybe its worth another try.[/QUOTE]
Well, maybe. One never knows. :)
2004-10-29 21:59 | User Profile
Tex:
It's interesting that you mention immmigration as the hinge issue that we paleo/nationalists can use to advance our cause.
The other day one of the V.P. candidates was in the area. I went to the "Support the politrickster" rally and as luck would have it, I was able to spend the entire time standing next to the press area.
I was interviewed by a reporter from the largest newspaper in the state, and also a reporter for a national news service. I identified myself as an undecided, independent voter and told both of them that neither party is paying any attention to the issue of illegal immigration among a few other things.
We should try to use such opportunities to our advantage and be ready to articulate a few statements on issues that the Likudnick Republocrat candidates would like to sweep under the rug.
2004-10-29 23:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Well I say you gotta dance with who brought you. If immigration only provides mileage in the southern and western states, then make it THE issue there. Look for something else in other places, but again, to my mind immigration is a litmus test kind of issue for the entire nation. Sure you should dance with them, but that doesn't mean you should let them think its an engagement, Immigration is how most of us got there, but we've gone far beyond that now. We can't forget that.
Yes, but I don't want to get ahead of ourselves. Course we're just shooting the bull here, but we need to look at small, achievable steps. Sweat the stuff we can have some control over and that means local, local, local...
Again, I think we can cross that bridge when we get there. Right now it's not even in sight.
But it's all about numbers, Okie. You know that. You get the numbers and you can't be ignored. Look at the evangelicals and the Republican party, say, 1984 through 1992. There's your model right there.
That's the real paleo weakness right there, sure. But to my mind there's a whole lot of work that must be done before we start worrying about that.
[/QUOTE] If we're talking about a comprehensive plan, maybe this original FCF essay deserves a look again.
[url=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4464&highlight=heubeck]The Integration of Theory and Practice[/url]
2004-10-30 02:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]If we're talking about a comprehensive plan, maybe this original FCF essay deserves a look again.
[url=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4464&highlight=heubeck]The Integration of Theory and Practice[/url][/QUOTE]Also when you get a chance, I'd like to see what you think of the original [url=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15483]Heubeck essay[/url].
Some of his ideas seem rather odd (book clubs?) but overall I think he does in his own way ponder some good material and tough concepts that need to be considered in a real political movement, even though this essay doesn't really IMO get this across as I think he must have wanted it, or we would.
Overall I also agree with your assessment of immigration groups. They to my observation have when serious tended to rapidly go beyond the surface problem (passing laws) to some of the underlying ideals we are struggling with. Even Numbers USA for instance, a strictly immigration organization, distributed a good report on the preface to the Movie Gods and Generals where it discusses the importance of place, home, soil and kin.
So I would agree prima facie that today's immigration groups do very good work, just prefacing it that its always important to keep in mind the ultimate and not just the initial or even intermediate goals you're working towards.
2004-10-30 19:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Also when you get a chance, I'd like to see what you think of the original [url=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15483]Heubeck essay[/url].
Thanks, Okie. I'll look at that once again.
Also, when above I wrote that's perhaps where our agenda should end, I meant just for the time being and mainly to pull together as broad a base as possible. Anti-immigration is a ready made issue to do that sort of thing as you indicate in this comment:
Overall I also agree with your assessment of immigration groups. They to my observation have when serious tended to rapidly go beyond the surface problem (passing laws) to some of the underlying ideals we are struggling with. Even Numbers USA for instance, a strictly immigration organization, distributed a good report on the preface to the Movie Gods and Generals where it discusses the importance of place, home, soil and kin.
Bingo.
2004-10-30 19:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Blond Knight]It's interesting that you mention immmigration as the hinge issue that we paleo/nationalists can use to advance our cause....I identified myself as an undecided, independent voter and told both of them that neither party is paying any attention to the issue of illegal immigration among a few other things....We should try to use such opportunities to our advantage and be ready to articulate a few statements on issues that the Likudnick Republocrat candidates would like to sweep under the rug.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, BK. Think about it -- for 9 out of 10 of us here the Republican party is still our home. I know I'm still a registered Republican even though I haven't voted for one at the national level since Pat Buchanan in the '96 GOP primary. Third parties are a obscene waste of time as those of us who have worked toward that end know very well. So, whether we like it or not we must work within the GOP.
Now look at the issues. Forget about foreign policy. We isolationist America First types may get some converts down the line, but not yet as Bush for example still has not overplayed his hand in Iraq, etc. But immigration, whoa! That's another story. I dare say less than 5% of the GOP as it exists on the ground throughout America support immigration, much less illegal immigration. There's your wedge issue where if you're willing to get your hands dirty and do the little precinct by precinct work, you could make a real impact where the waves would be felt on a national level. Plus, you work locally, yet constitutionally it's a federal issue so it's made to order for traditional conservatives and nationalists to see some of their issues gain mainstream influence.
'Course all this hinges on whether or not there are more than a few that actually still care anymore. Folks have to stay so busy just to get by these days that it's tough, I know.
2004-10-30 21:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Exactly, BK. Think about it -- for 9 out of 10 of us here the Republican party is still our home. I know I'm still a registered Republican even though I haven't voted for one at the national level since Pat Buchanan in the '96 GOP primary. Third parties are a obscene waste of time as those of us who have worked toward that end know very well. So, whether we like it or not we must work within the GOP.
I certainly tend to agree with what you say about 3rd parties of course, and am also a registered Republican, as I suspect are most here. That said, are our positions today really within the GOP as currently defined by its (neocon)leaders, which interprets one's true loyalty to what a Republican should be as unwavering support of Israel and the Bush's war against Iraq for the essense of its foreign policy, faith that tax cuts for the rich and big business by themselves will solve all our economic problems for its domestic policy (the social issues being solved purely by us conservatives being willing to wait for us to get a pubbie majority strong enough to nominate conservative judges everywhere)?
Obviously not.
The key is what you mean by political action. Heubeck says its basically counterproductive.
[quote=Heubeck]The conservative movement is defensive, defeatist, depressed, and apologetic. It lacks self-confidence, virility, energy, intensity, vigor, aggressiveness, vitality, and a firm belief in the rightness of its cause. This is because conservatives have failed to devote the proper amount of energy to developing an alternative cultural world-view opposed to the dominant leftist one. They have instead devoted much of their energy to electing sympathetic politicians and lobbying the government to pass or overturn particular laws.(Actually pretty much all of it)
There are two problems with this strategy. The first and more obvious is that it is exceedingly and progressively more difficult to exert political influence when the cultural assumptions underlying those political goals are being steadily eroded by the popular culture, if no serious attempt to retard or reverse that erosion is ever made.
Heubeck's point about what political strategy involves, devoting "much of their energy to electing sympathetic politicians and lobbying the government to pass or overturn particular laws " pretty much hits the nail on the head. Have you ever actually been involved in party politics? This is the essense of what party politics involves for anyone entering politics at the grass roots. Politicians want people willing to stick sign in the ground at election time, and that's about it. If you work hard you may get to know some staffers you can briefly chat with or get a little extra work composing their office's rsponse to your letters when you write. Is this what we want to limit our efforts too? I seriously doubt it.
I understand where you are coming from. Heubeck himself summarizes
[quote=Heubeck]
Discussion Lists Have Little Value - Action is More Important
.........Action is the most important element at first, because much of learning is evolutionary, and one of the best ways to learn is by making mistakes in the real world--but, of course, there is never any excuse for making the same mistake twice.
[SIZE=5]Conservatives have an excessive tolerance for incessant talking[/SIZE].
Which pretty much nails it on the head.
However, you don't want to go from one extreme to the other. Once you start to get involved in politics, they will try to push you to the other extreme, where all you've got time for is posting yard signs. This is part of the basic problem, as Heubeck says
[quote=Heubeck]To sum up, the basic problem confronting us is that those who are familiar with the theoretical underpinnings of conservatism are not particularly interested in putting their ideas into practice, and those who are engaged in activism are not well-read and are obsessed with public policy matters. Those who think do not act, and those who act do not think. If this continues, the conservative movement will cease to exist in every way but name.
The key therefor is not just if we're goingto take action, but what action you're going to take. And here you have to be very selective. One's resources of time in comparison with the challenges we - realistically - face, are extremely limited.
Now look at the issues. Forget about foreign policy. We isolationist America First types may get some converts down the line, but not yet as Bush for example still has not overplayed his hand in Iraq, etc. But immigration, whoa! That's another story. I dare say less than 5% of the GOP as it exists on the ground throughout America support immigration, much less illegal immigration. There's your wedge issue where if you're willing to get your hands dirty and do the little precinct by precinct work, you could make a real impact where the waves would be felt on a national level. Plus, you work locally, yet constitutionally it's a federal issue so it's made to order for traditional conservatives and nationalists to see some of their issues gain mainstream influence.
'Course all this hinges on whether or not there are more than a few that actually still care anymore. Folks have to stay so busy just to get by these days that it's tough, I know.[/QUOTE]
Well I think you're right about the issues you choose. But precinct work? Our time is very limited. There are all sorts of things we already aren't doing cause of shortage of time anyway that IMO could accomplish much more. And I really don't think our nation has time to wait. Heubeck points this out - traditionalism does, as a marginalized position among the nations leadership, tend to lose its cultural position among the people at large over time.
Not to be negative - there are several things in your approach of issues that fit Heubecks criteria quite well.
[quote=Heubeck] [B]Some Basic Premises[/B]
At least I see you're leaning toward that.
But ultimately I see the basic problem in any political action in the Republican Party as motivated by this erroneous reasoning
But in the final analysis, it is narrow and naive, assuming that all meaningful political action takes place within the formal framework of political parties and elected office. In this view, politics is a contest in which competition and compromise lead to a result that may not be desirable to everyone but which reflects, nonetheless, the will of the people. The older elements of the conservative movement-traditionalism, libertarianism, and anticommunist populism, many of whose representatives were labeled "extremists" and ultimately silenced or purged from the Republican Party were the very groups that remained skeptical of these assumptions. [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15388]This Is Conservatism? (Ain't It Pretty To Think So?)[/URL]
You are suggesting people like us get involved in a system on the basis of assumptions who by our very nature we tend to be most skeptical of.
So I see your need for concrete and politically/culturally effective action quite clearly. "Triskelion" also saw the need clearly, in fact viewed it as so self-evident that he took it for granted, and used it unforunately in a somewhat dishonest way for his own dishonest program. But the need was there.
I'm not sure Heubeck really has the answers either. His "study groups" idea seems on the face of it a little weird frankly, but I think he had some good motivations and reasons for coming up with it. I think if you look at where he was going with it you might be able to come up with something if you worked with it.
But I would have to advise against anyone seeing that spending time at long meetings and putting in yard signs is an idea that's going to change our country. As Heubeck says "there is no excuse for naivete" and we certainly shouldn't be caught, even unwittingly, promoting it.
2004-10-31 00:18 | User Profile
testing -- Can everyone see this thread now?
2004-11-04 03:31 | User Profile
as truly informed Americans, we are in the minority. We will never never never ever have any impact in the democratic process. So either we succumb to the power, and let it take us, or we fight back. Voting will not accomplish this. Murder is wrong, and they take advantage of our morality. They know that we believe it is wrong to kill, so they get away with it, because they are officials, and we are nothing. I have no hope at all for America. There is nothing that can change the reality of today. We are serfs. We pay 50 % to combined Government, and that's the way it will stay. Even participating in the discourse is self-defeating and totally irrelevant. It really is.
2004-11-04 03:38 | User Profile
It's over. They won. They put it in motion 100 years ago, when they stole all reliability away from the American people and sold our Country dead. 100 years ago. THe Federal Reserve. In 1971, a man making 12,000/yr could buy a house for 20,000 with an acre of land. Today, that man makes 30,000/yr but the house and land costs 200,000. It's over. They put this system of usury into momentum and it extrapolates upon itself. Just forget about it. Gun Rights is a JOKE. Freedom Lost, and Tyranny Won. Admit it and move on as best you can.
2004-11-16 03:46 | User Profile
Moderator's Note - Inserted From [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15323&highlight=Ragno]Miscellaneous Polemics by Il Ragno and Responses[/URL]
All this pro-white/white-sympathetic brainpower is heartening, really, but I have to wonder: are you guys playing an overheated game of Dungeons & Dragons from behind your computer screens, the personality clashes of which puzzle the rest of us, or do any of you actually set the mouse down for a minute to meet, in the flesh, other men who share your opinions, save a doctrinal difference or two, or otherwise manifest activism in ways that could arguably not include preaching to/arguing with the choir, in a way that might advance the cause?
I'm prodding and being serious. Some WN/conservo events I hit don't quite seem to reach the levels of articulation and sophistication seen here on OD, and I'm thinkin', [I]do any of these guys post on OD?[/I] And if not, where are they?
2004-11-16 04:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]All this pro-white/white-sympathetic brainpower is heartening, really, but I have to wonder: are you guys playing an overheated game of Dungeons & Dragons from behind your computer screens, the personality clashes of which puzzle the rest of us,
Exactly - except we fight all the time over who should be the dungeonmaster:lol: > or do any of you actually set the mouse down for a minute to meet, in the flesh, other men who share your opinions, save a doctrinal difference or two, or otherwise manifest activism in ways that could arguably not include preaching to/arguing with the choir, in a way that might advance the cause? Good question Hugh. Yes, we have discussed questions regarding activism from time to time. You might want to check out this thread in the Real World Activism Section, where we discuss The GOP, where I have a few comments [url=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=92988&postcount=3]Would We Be Better Off Working For Immigration Reform Within the GOP?[/url]
Now everyone here has their own different, private goals for these forums. By their nature on these forums it is a little harder to tell what ones goals really are - its easy for some to hide in internet anonymity. The system adminstrators and moderators goal I think was definitely for this forum to reach a level where it was capable of practical activism, as you suggest. Not everyone here had the same goal however. If you will reread some of the arguments between Il Ragno, who sort of seems to be the guiding light for the Phora group, and myself and the mainstream ODers I think you will see actually a substantative disagreement over whether we should pursue practical activism.
Any organization after all tends to have two types of people, I'd call them actvist types and theoretical types. Activist types tend to want to limit discussion of controversial topics so as to get on with the real agenda, whereas the theoretician types tend to see their goal as the "keepers of the flame" and stoutly resisting any efforts to dilute a movements purity. Il Ragno's post where he accuses us in this thread of turning into Free Republic is typical.
In actuality it was this tendency of the Phoran's to oppose practical and useful political activity which was the original basis for our split, if you follow it.
I'm prodding and being serious. Some WN/conservo events I hit don't quite seem to reach the levels of articulation and sophistication seen here on OD, and I'm thinkin', [I]do any of these guys post on OD?[/I] And if not, where are they?[/QUOTE]Well we have had real life people register here. Look at our members list from the WN side - it's a pretty impressive list. Kevin MacDonald, Kevin Alfred Strom, Alex Linder, etc. We've also had well known paleo's post too. However, these guys don't seem to want to post regularly.
I have met some movement people actually. However it is my impression that moving to cyberspace to practical activism is not as easy as it seems. Real life movement people tend to view cyberspace people I think just as your real life parish priests in the middle ages used to view those scholastics in the monastary - interesting for their symbolic value as scholars, but viewing their discussions as epitimized by their interminable debates on how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.
It is somewhat difficult to go from a place where you think you have a handle on some pretty significant issues, to real life organizations which basically just want you to get involved in practical organizational matters and avoid potentially schismatic topics. There's defintely a gulf there Hugh from what I can see. Maybe you could review these threads on activism and see what other questions we might have addresses.
I hope this answers your question in some measure.
2004-11-16 07:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]All this pro-white/white-sympathetic brainpower is heartening, really, but I have to wonder: are you guys playing an overheated game of Dungeons & Dragons from behind your computer screens, the personality clashes of which puzzle the rest of us, or do any of you actually set the mouse down for a minute to meet, in the flesh, other men who share your opinions, save a doctrinal difference or two, or otherwise manifest activism in ways that could arguably not include preaching to/arguing with the choir, in a way that might advance the cause?
I'm prodding and being serious. Some WN/conservo events I hit don't quite seem to reach the levels of articulation and sophistication seen here on OD, and I'm thinkin', [I]do any of these guys post on OD?[/I] And if not, where are they?[/QUOTE]
Gee, you really ask hard questions, Hugh.
Well, I can't say that I'm into anything terribly organized. My peripatetic schedule doesn't lend itself to that, and frankly I was never much of a joiner.
But I do try to spread the word diligently to family and friends. My line of work brings me into contact with some successful people who are influential in their own way, and I do believe some progress has been made.
I am willing to become more deeply and actively involved, but I ask you in what? As a Christian I can't join the National Alliance, and although AMREN is closer even then there is a rather anti-Christian tint to it.
I'm hoping to work with my fellow Christian nationalists, and hoping that somehow a leader will emerge to pull us all together. A forlorn hope, perhaps.
Walter
2004-11-16 16:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Gee, you really ask hard questions, Hugh.
Well, I can't say that I'm into anything terribly organized. My peripatetic schedule doesn't lend itself to that, and frankly I was never much of a joiner. Group strategies defeat individial strategies Walter.
I am willing to become more deeply and actively involved, but I ask you in what? As a Christian I can't join the National Alliance, and although AMREN is closer even then there is a rather anti-Christian tint to it. Although I think you are being pretty picky regarding AmRen, there are many other organizations actually Walter. The question to me is what do they really do, and what strategy do they have, besides sending out newsletters, collecting dues, and holding annual conferences.
I'm hoping to work with my fellow Christian nationalists, and hoping that somehow a leader will emerge to pull us all together. A forlorn hope, perhaps.Walter[/QUOTE] At the risk of sounding pedantic, this sort of epitimizes what I heard about paleo's knowing little about political strategy.
2004-11-16 18:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]At the risk of sounding pedantic, this sort of epitimizes what I heard about paleo's knowing little about political strategy.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's really true. I'm no leader, that's for sure. I'd join an organization that was really paleocon. I supported PJB in every way I could, but he wasn't the man for the job, let's face it.
Ron Paul, now I'd join his party, if he were ever to cut ties with the Pubbies.
Walter
2004-11-16 18:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Ron Paul, now I'd join his party, if he were ever to cut ties with the Pubbies.[/QUOTE]
But that won't happen, Walter.
Actually, Ron Paul is a good example of the need to infiltrate and work within the GOP. He tried the Libertarian thing and never went anywhere. Then he joined up with the GOP years ago, got elected and has been a Congressman ever since.
2004-11-17 00:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]But that won't happen, Walter.
Actually, Ron Paul is a good example of the need to infiltrate and work within the GOP. He tried the Libertarian thing and never went anywhere. Then he joined up with the GOP years ago, got elected and has been a Congressman ever since.[/QUOTE]Its difficult for me to cite Ron Paul as a model of anything organizationally, since really "Libertarian Party" is sort of a contridiction in terms, and a lot of other reasons.
However, maybe we should rehash what our basic ideological alignment here is, since surprisingly it isn't obvious to people, and then let me forward what sort of political strategy we should be working on. Walter, our basic alignment here is with the Council of Conservative Citizens. I think even someone as fastidious as you should be able to accept them. The reason AmRen keeps coming up instead is AmRen seems more active and visible nationally. (I.e., they have an active webpage and forum and a charismatic leader). CoCC has Sam Francis editing their Newspaper, but that's about it.
As to organizational strategy Tex, I think for organizations which must operate in the shadows, which open opposition to the ADL/SPLC basically means, Lenin's model of simultaneous above ground/belowground activity holds. "Infiltrating" the Republican party obviously fits into that model. You also need a below ground organization though. And our experience here shows how difficult it is to build that.
Basically the problem is trying to maintain a below ground organization using democratic methods. From our experience here, we've seen how difficult that is - like herding cats. :lol:
Anyway correct me if I'm wrong on any of this Tex.
2004-11-17 01:59 | User Profile
Okiereddust,
A good idea. As to organizational strategy Tex, I think for organizations which must operate in the shadows, which open opposition to the ADL/SPLC basically means, Lenin's model of simultaneous above ground/belowground activity holds. "Infiltrating" the Republican party obviously fits into that model. You also need a below ground organization though. And our experience here shows how difficult it is to build that.-Okiereddust
Sometimes diversity can be a good thing! :lol:
2004-11-17 17:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Its difficult for me to cite Ron Paul as a model of anything organizationally, since really "Libertarian Party" is sort of a contridiction in terms, and a lot of other reasons.
I meant that Dr. Paul eventually realized that trying to do anything outside of the GOP was a fool's errand. He officially became a Republican and subsequently won a seat in Congress. If he had remained a Libertarian I'm sure he would still be practicing medicine back in Surfside.
However, maybe we should rehash what our basic ideological alignment here is, since surprisingly it isn't obvious to people, and then let me forward what sort of political strategy we should be working on. Walter, our basic alignment here is with the Council of Conservative Citizens.... As to organizational strategy Tex, I think for organizations which must operate in the shadows, which open opposition to the ADL/SPLC basically means, Lenin's model of simultaneous above ground/belowground activity holds. "Infiltrating" the Republican party obviously fits into that model. You also need a below ground organization though. And our experience here shows how difficult it is to build that....Basically the problem is trying to maintain a below ground organization using democratic methods. From our experience here, we've seen how difficult that is - like herding cats....Anyway correct me if I'm wrong on any of this Tex.[/QUOTE]
Though not a member as I can't afford their dues, I certainly like the CCC and would be proud to be associated with them, sure. And yes, ideologically I would say they are pretty close to where I am and the general tone of this board community.
Political strategy? I think it is quite obvious that we must work within the GOP somehow. Outside of it is just a dead end as there are no numbers there and our people seemingly aren't willing to move right now. They have a political home within the GOP and so one must go where the people are. My ideas on political strategy revolve around the model of Evangelicals/Christian Coalition in the mid to late 80s. Things like targeting local races under the radar where one can run unopposed, etc. Again, I think immigration is a key wedge issue that needs to be exploited. It's the major issue where there is a real disconnect between the national GOP party elite and the grassroots.
2004-11-17 19:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Political strategy? I think it is quite obvious that we must work within the GOP somehow. Outside of it is just a dead end as there are no numbers there and our people seemingly aren't willing to move right now. They have a political home within the GOP and so one must go where the people are. My ideas on political strategy revolve around the model of Evangelicals/Christian Coalition in the mid to late 80s.
I assume of course you think you have an answer for the eventual demise of this, which led to its present sorry state, a state bemoaned by practicaly everyone I have heard from within the organization, save its top leaders.
The demise was simply that it forgot its broader principles and practically forgot about everything but winning votes and electing candidates (a la Free Republic). While in the GOP, it forget its identity as something singular within the GOP. (This all seperate and apart from the Christian Zionism thing)
Things like targeting local races under the radar where one can run unopposed, etc. Again, I think immigration is a key wedge issue that needs to be exploited. It's the major issue where there is a real disconnect between the national GOP party elite and the grassroots.[/QUOTE] True, it needs to be exploited, that is undoubtedly true. However the mainstream conservative movement has tried these tactics before, to try and keep the GOP conservative.
Immigration true is important, but from our standpoint it requires a much broader ideological attack on the neocons, internationalist-elites, etc. Once we show signs of success, the elites will quickly try to defuse the issue. Backroom deals will be struck - say "we'll drop support for amnesty - in return, you guys need to start purging these closet bigots, ant-semites, etc. that are rumored to have started sneaking in the party."
We don't want to have to sneak into the GOP by the back door, and then quickly leave when the mas'sur is no longer in need of our services. We are going in because we say this is our plantation and our land, and we don't need no overseer no more.
Of course that doesn't mean we are stupid and show are hand too early either.
All in all, its not a simple situation. Sure we can use the GOP for some purposes. But we have to have a strategy and organization in place, or else they may just end up using us. They're very good at that after all.
2004-11-17 20:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I assume of course you think you have an answer for the eventual demise of this, which led to its present sorry state,
Well the way I look at things that's a problem I would consider fortunate to have. Or let me put it this way, I'll worry about an eventual demise once we're in a position to be demisin'. :)
The demise was simply that it forgot its broader principles and practically forgot about everything but winning votes and electing candidates (a la Free Republic). While in the GOP, it forget its identity as something singular within the GOP. (This all seperate and apart from the Christian Zionism thing)
Did it forget its broader principles or its singular one? You need one simple rallying torch, true. But again, to my mind that one rallying issue is immigration. Right now that's the one horse you hitch all the other wagons of your greater paleo-con agenda to within the broader confines of the GOP.
All in all, its not a simple situation. Sure we can use the GOP for some purposes. But we have to have a strategy and organization in place, or else they may just end up using us. They're very good at that after all.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, but you gotta start somewhere and my argument is that place is the existing anti-immigration lobbies/groups that exist right now. Let that be ground zero and start building the broader agenda from that core and stay local, local, local. And quite frankly, eventual political compromising here and there sounds like a problem that would be a luxury to have at this point. The bottom line is that all the talk in the world doesn't amount to a hill of beans. What matters in the end is whether your guy wins that particular election or not and that means lots of boots on the ground in key places.
2004-11-18 03:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Agreed, but you gotta start somewhere and my argument is that place is the existing anti-immigration lobbies/groups that exist right now. Well it certainly is a one of the better mainstream political things we can do. But serving as a grunt, endlessly writing letters to the editor, calling congressman, etc. without ever getting to the deeper problems or establishing a broader aimed movement is in and itself not productive. Political ends by themselves, as noted below, are just a fraction of conservatism, and by themselves will accomplish little.
[quote=Texas Dissident]Let that be ground zero and start building the broader agenda from that core and stay local, local, local. Well besides the problems above, one problem with this strategy is the immigration matter is a matter of federal law and policy. At the local level you really can't do too much. There are some things, but really all effective work here must focus at the federal level.
[quote=Texas Dissident]And quite frankly, eventual political compromising here and there sounds like a problem that would be a luxury to have at this point. The bottom line is that all the talk in the world doesn't amount to a hill of beans. What matters in the end is whether your guy wins that particular election or not and that means lots of boots on the ground in key places.[/QUOTE] I'd hate to quote you on that. And especially I'm glad Il Ragno isn't on this thread. Remember we started out this thread (at least before I split it off) talking about whether we were becoming like Free Republic. And that last sentence for the life of me sounds just like it came from Jim Robinson :lol:
But seriously most discussions of paleoconservative activism don't focus on political activity chiefly, if at all. This is firstly because > conservatism is far more than a political movement: It encompasses economic, social, cultural, and theological questions.[URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15388&highlight=Conservatism]This Is Conservatism[/URL]
It's why two of the recent suggestions I've seen on political strategy again don't principly mention political action at all, [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15440&highlight=Conservatism]Fourth Generation Warfare[/URL] and [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15483&highlight=Conservatism]An Integration of Theory and Practice - A Program For the New Tradionalism Movement[/URL].(Where forgive me for pointing out you still owe me a review/response)
This is where I've been trying to steer our discussion towards, because here I think is where at least people have been seriously thinking about what a strategy for paleo-conservatism/anti-globalism should be. Instead of cropping up anew of-topic on other threads as just an extension of[URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15493&highlight=Conservatism]Would We Be More Effective Working Within the GOP[/URL] (where forgive the flux, but is where I think this thread belongs.)
I appreciate your concern about working. But one of the hardest forms of work, and at the same time most rewarding, is that planning where our work should be. This is where our "talking" would do a very good service.
One last thing, before talking about areas completely of a different sort of what we do here, it might also be useful to point to an area where we could be more effective which is right up our alley. There are many options here which we could explore. In the past these have been downplayed, because our forum was rather hetergenous, and it was hard to get agreement on anything. The dominant feeling as expressed by Anti-Yuppie seemed to be that an ideal forum consisted of about 5 people writing long thesis's to each other. An idea which may have been consiistentr with the type and personality of the people he worked with (re: the Phora, where any increase in numbers above 5 seems to provoke a schism) but really didn't address the problem of the internet becoming a big amen corner of 5, oblivious and deserving the same from the outside world.
Before we go giving all sorts of suggestions on consevative activism in areas about which we have little practical experience. maybe we should revisit this area where we are experienced, and see what we could do better right here, where we all have put a great deal of time in. Although it might be an area where we need to discuss many things privately, as there are prying eyes here who recognize the potential of what we're doing and will act to stop it. (Unlike mainstream politics, where this forum is and wll remain virtually unknown).
2004-11-18 07:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE]As to organizational strategy Tex, I think for organizations which must operate in the shadows, which open opposition to the ADL/SPLC basically means, Lenin's model of simultaneous above ground/belowground activity holds. "Infiltrating" the Republican party obviously fits into that model. You also need a below ground organization though. And our experience here shows how difficult it is to build that. [/QUOTE]
Lenin famously instructed British Communists to "support the Labour Party as a rope supports a hanged man."
I love that quote. Maybe that's how we should view the GOP.
And I must admit that the strategy worked, at least for a while. The Labour Party was way far to the left until Maggie Thatcher so totally trounced them that they were forced to move to the center or die. Plus, the USSR collapsed, and that's what the Communists were all about anyway.
Tex makes a good point about Ron Paul, maybe it's the best way to go.
I don't like it (it feels too much like Freeper collaboration). The neocons are the ENEMY, and the GOP is their home. But maybe Tex is right. Actually, it's just a taste of the neocon's own medicing - infiltrating and subverting the GOP was the whole of their political plan from fall of Nixon onward.
Walter
2005-02-05 15:58 | User Profile
The open borders will drive U.S. wages down to Third-World levels. The Repugs are traitors on this issue--better to support Democrats than the Bush Junior/Limbaugh Faux News parasites.
Plutocracy is the Big Enemy.
2005-02-06 07:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.]The open borders will drive U.S. wages down to Third-World levels. The Repugs are traitors on this issue--better to support Democrats than the Bush Junior/Limbaugh Faux News parasites.
Plutocracy is the Big Enemy.[/QUOTE]
True abou the Pubbies, but the DemonRats are all about plutocracy. They're a tad more Jewish and Big Media at the top than the Pubbies, just as the Pubbies were traditionally more Big Oil and WASP at the top than the 'Rats, but even those lines are now blurred to indistinction.
Take CA's Governor Ah-nohld. He's a Hollywood media superstar AND A FREEKING KENNEDY to boot.
How many parties are there?
There's really only one. We live in a one-party state.
2005-02-07 15:44 | User Profile
As to the main question in the thread title, color me cynical, but I think it would be an utter waste of time to try and "reform" the GOP stance on immigration from within. Ron Paul was mentioned earlier, but I think of him as the exception that proves the rule. It was a different time when he first got elected, and I am sure the Rovians in the party have put in place mechanisms to see that others following his example are not elected. In addition, he's relegated to the nether regions of the party in terms of power. You're not likely to find him chairing any committees of any importance or power. The redistricting untaken recently by the Texas legislature has seen his district shrink both in size and number of conservative (our definition, that is) constituents. I used to be in his district, but no longer, instead I'm being "represented" by a typical party hack (and it really doesn't matter which party any more, does it?).
I think change will come, if at all, through breakaway elements of the GOP who hammer on this issue. I agree that the Libertarian Party is a dead end, for all the reasons that have been hashed out here.
As an indication of how serious it is, even Limbaugh felt obligated to wasting a few moments of "precious broadcast time" on the subject, taking away from more important matters like discussing the NFL, cigars, his golf game or what sort of redocoration of his personal jet he should undertake.
As distasteful as it was, I spent some time in the intellectual "Dead Zone" of FreeIsrael, I mean, Republic, and even some of those dolts are starting to understand, with the number of people wondering why Bush apparently doesn't "get" this issue being rapidly outnumbered by those who are finally starting to see that the GOP & Bush know exactly what they are doing on this issue. The words "Bush" and "traitor" have even been seen in close proximity over there, an FR first, most likely. Of course, there are still plenty of Bush-walks-on-water types and Rove-fellators over there, but they're no longer in the majority, I would say, and the Open-Borders people are being hounded off a lot of threads. There are only a few, like Dane and bayourod, with enough stamina to still type the same thing over and over again in the face of overwhelming evidence that Bush is purposefully destroying the White middle class. It must be nearly time for another FR "purge" of the insufficiently-faithful over there.
In any case, the writing on the wall (it's a brilliant, flashing neon sign by now) is becoming too much to ignore, so we'll see what happens, but Walter's theory on "worse is better" is getting another push, certainly.
2005-03-12 22:21 | User Profile
Republocrats are on the wrong side of this issue in the minds of most Caucasians. This makes them vulnerable to third party encroachment at the local level. If anyone reading this is in a position to get something going, a party called Close Our Borders could win local elections in California and Texas. Find yourselves some candidates and I will contribute financially to their campaigns.
2005-03-14 16:59 | User Profile
Petrocco,
Good to see you here. Welcome!
It must be nearly time for another FR "purge" of the insufficiently-faithful over there.
Boy, when you're right, you're right...