← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · AntiYuppie
Thread ID: 16898 | Posts: 23 | Started: 2005-02-22
2005-02-22 19:37 | User Profile
This is a good counterweight to both the FReeper and VNN takes on the subject. -AY
[url]http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=250[/url]
A note from David Duke ââ¬â I have known Sam Francis for almost two decades. When many political pundits were afraid of associating with the ââ¬Åformer KKKââ¬â¢er turned elected officialââ¬Â Sam wasnââ¬â¢t. When I entered some presidential primaries he invited me to the Editorial Board of The Washington Times where I was asked to explain and expound on my Presidential Platform. Sam was right there in the lionââ¬â¢s pit ââ¬âsometimes backing me up from some scurrilous attacks before I had a chance to respond. I remember well the dinner we had that night in the Orleans restaurant in Arlington when we shared each otherââ¬â¢s views of the world and each found a true brother in the Cause. Many times Sam Francis defended me in his newspaper columns and dared to stand up against the anti-White racists and the Jewish supremacists.
So the loss of Sam Francis is both a great loss for me personally and a terrible loss for the Movement as a whole. We will all miss his wit, his passion for our principles, his love for our people, and yes, his courage. He was courageous, a man who was a nationally successful columnist who put it all on the line to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The best way we can remember Sam is to rededicate ourselves to the Cause that he lived his life for.
2005-02-22 19:49 | User Profile
Good piece from Representative Duke, AY. The FReakers and Linder all live in cartoon worlds--Fauxian and Fuhrer-fetishist, respectively. Dr. Francis was ever a realist...
BTW, does anyone else recall Sam's radio essay on NPR in the spring of 1996 defending Buchanan's Republican Primary candidacy? Haven't been able to track down the transcript.
2005-02-23 14:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.] BTW, does anyone else recall Sam's radio essay on NPR in the spring of 1996 defending Buchanan's Republican Primary candidacy? Haven't been able to track down the transcript.[/QUOTE]
I agree, good piece. If you find that info, id like to read it too.
2005-02-24 00:56 | User Profile
The difference between a Duke and a Linder.
2005-02-24 01:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]The difference between a Duke and a Linder.[/QUOTE]Its too bad Duke was imprisoned, and Linder became at least sort of the symbolic leader of White Nationalism, determined to recast the WN movement in a manner contemptuous of conservatives and Christians and anyone acceptable to them, such as Pat Buchanan. Otherwise Francis's MAR might have made real progress. Note I did say unfortunate coincidence. I doubt it's just a coincidence that people like Duke go to to prison while people like Linder get rich off the stupid syncophants he's developed, completely unbothered by the feds.
Now with Francis's death and Buchanan's political retirement the possibility of a viable political alternative to neo-conservative seems to still be quite far away. And if anyone develops, it will obviously at this point just have to write off any WN's influenced by people like Linder as its enemies. No similar paleo like Francis is likely to show anywhere near the solicitude of WN's or the strategical brilliance Francis had.
Now doubt perfectly the way Linder, Foxman, and similar types prefer it.
2005-02-24 01:20 | User Profile
...and Linder became at least sort of the symbolic leader of White Nationalism...
Oh good lord no. Linder is completely marginalized by the entire WN establishment. Duke, Black and the National Alliance are the leaders. Linder is uninvited to the large yearly meets and that tells the tale. Linder is one step above White in being shunned.
2005-02-24 01:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I doubt it's just a coincidence that people like Duke go to to prison while people like Linder get rich off the stupid syncophants he's developed...[/QUOTE]
Is [I]anything [/I] you write tainted by reality? Linder's "rich"? Since when - and how? The last I heard, it was still popular for his detractors to poke fun at him for living in a shack with his grandmother. Since when does changing bedpans and administering someone's medication constitute "the good life"?
I'm not up to speed on the charges against Duke, but I believe they involved financial chicanery, not ideology (though it's likely his ideology fuelled the government's prosecutorial zeal).
2005-02-24 02:29 | User Profile
Okiereddust - very good points. I wasnt aware of that 'fork in the road' so to speak, after Duke went to the gulag and Linder took up the cause. Im not even really familiar with this person, then again, im learning something new all the time. You have either been following things much longer than I or you have done much more research.
Also, Bardamu notes that - Duke, Black and the National Alliance are the leaders now, and that seems to me to be the case also. Even still, im troubled that inter-group bickering will keep us from a achieving political foothold, without which we will go the way of Rhodesia.
2005-02-24 03:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=JoseyWales]Even still, im troubled that inter-group bickering will keep us from a achieving political foothold, without which we will go the way of Rhodesia.[/QUOTE]
It is troubling, but at least the main 3 manage not to fight with one another.
2005-02-24 04:08 | User Profile
I agree that David, Don and perhaps SOME of the NA are in the lead right now, but there are definitely tensions within the NA. Although I'm not a member, I know several prominent NA members who have left recently, either of their own volition or forcibly. That said, the NA is still a formidable member of the Movement. As for Linder, he appears to have a high intellect and does post some trenchant commentary on his site. He is pretty offputting and that relegates him to the lunatic fringe. He's the prefect target for Foxman and the other judenmeisters. While I don't believe that Alex is an agent provocateur, he is unwittingly falling into the Jews' hands as a most appealing caricature of WN. To bolster this point, I recently had lunch with 2 exceptionally gifted and outspoken Southern university men and two of the indisputable intellectual giants of our movement (guess?) and the two college men both stated their exasperation with VNN and how it's likely to turn off potential recruits.
At the end of the day, we need to coalesce around the immigration issue to gain traction with the lemmings. Here'e the syllabus I've used successfully, serially--VDare, Stormfront and then National Vanguard. The key is to tap into the masses' atavistic fear and loathing of the "other", in this case the unassimalable Amerinds, and then point them to the central role of the Jews behind our national misfortunes of the past 70 years. It's like bass fishing, friends--we need to reel them in slowly and deliberately. The slightest initial twist of the wrist sends them scurrying away.
BTW--I'm pleased to have just found this site. It's a great second home to Stormfront.
2005-02-24 07:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]I'm not up to speed on the charges against Duke, but I believe they involved financial chicanery, not ideology (though it's likely his ideology fuelled the government's prosecutorial zeal).[/QUOTE]
I believe the charges against Duke were some highly technical, arcane federal election rules violations pertaining to keeping lists of donors seperate for the purposes of maintaining proper accounting records. Its my understanding that virtually every member of the Congress, and every Governor in the Union, routinely violates these rules, and that doing so was not only never pursued previously, bu that if it were to be pursued, it was always perceived as being a regulatory violation, rather than the breaking of a criminal statute. Duke's prosecution was entirely political in its motivation, even if someone can find some vague sub-sectional clause 23z(x)ii in the Federal register that Duke might have played a tad fast & loose with (as is the common practice).
When no one can explain ***WHY[/B][/I] a given fellow is in prison, that is all the evidence I need that they shouldn't have been sent there, 99% of the time.
2005-02-24 08:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE]To bolster this point, I recently had lunch with 2 exceptionally gifted and outspoken Southern university men and two of the indisputable intellectual giants of our movement (guess?) and the two college men both stated their exasperation with VNN and how it's likely to turn off potential recruits.[/QUOTE]
That matter [whether VNN turns off potential recruits] has been discussed many times at VNN. However, VNN's web ratings do not reflect much, if any, turning-off. Yes, it can be argued that VNN may turn off the paleocon-type people. But, at the same time, it is seen as a breath of fresh air by others.
The goal of VNN is more or less to jolt people into 'naming the Jew.' And to shame the people who don't. Also, it may surprise some people to learn that Linder is not a fascist-type, but is instead rather "libertarian" in his worldview, i.e. he has a "no rules" kind of worldview, more or less at least.
2005-02-24 10:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]That matter [whether VNN turns off potential recruits] has been discussed many times at VNN. However, VNN's web ratings do not reflect much, if any, turning-off. Yes, it can be argued that VNN may turn off the paleocon-type people. But, at the same time, it is seen as a breath of fresh air by others. And what to cyber web-ratings mean in the real world? Very little. Except to purely cyber-people.
The goal of VNN is more or less to jolt people into 'naming the Jew.' And to shame the people who don't. Also, it may surprise some people to learn that Linder is not a fascist-type, but is instead rather "libertarian" in his worldview, i.e. he has a "no rules" kind of worldview, more or less at least.
-------[/QUOTE]It wouldn't surprise people to learn that Linder makes any sort of claim for himself, but it would surprise me if they believe him or you, other than the synchophants. Doubtless you'd also claim Hitler was a "libertarian". :lol:
2005-02-24 10:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Linder's "rich"? Since when - and how? The last I heard, it was still popular for his detractors to poke fun at him for living in a shack with his grandmother. Since when does changing bedpans and administering someone's medication constitute "the good life"? [/QUOTE]By the standards of WN, it would seem the sums seen in the financial-related harrangues that have come up, such as between Linder, Bill White, and the NA over resistance records etc., have involved some rather substantial amounts of money by our standards, whether or not Linder chooses to live with granny.
2005-02-24 10:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]I believe the charges against Duke were some highly technical, arcane federal election rules violations pertaining to keeping lists of donors seperate for the purposes of maintaining proper accounting records.[/QUOTE] Yes, that's been discussed before here, and Duke gave a lengthy account of it.
It seems pretty clear to me. People can rave and rant all they want to on the internet, and the gov't ignores them, cause they're harmless, or maybe even helpful. But become a serious political figure and they crack the whip. Clearly they wish to confine WN entirely to the internet.
As also Linder and his supporters clearly do.
2005-02-24 13:42 | User Profile
Wasnt it tax invasion on an undeclared ten thousand dollars or some such?
2005-02-24 18:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Wasnt it tax [e]vasion on an undeclared ten thousand dollars or some such?[/QUOTE]
I think he was imprisoned for undocumented campaign funds, which tied in with tax evasion. To give some perspective on this, neocon hero Alan Keyes paid himself circa 100 K out of campaign funds and didn't even receive a slap on the wrist, to say nothing of the Clinton administration's fundraising. The point being that Duke did time in Federal Prison for offenses that get a slap on the wrist if you're unlucky and don't even get noticed much of the time.
There are hundreds of tax code and campaign fundraising laws that exist on the books but are rarely enforced, except in the case where they prove to be a useful tool for going after someone they want to get rid of for political reasons. It's very convenient for the Feds - they can say "We believe Duke has his First Amendment Rights. We aren't indicting him for his political views" when in fact they are. Otherwise, just about every elected official would be serving time in a Federal penitentiary for something along the lines of Duke's trumped up charges.
2005-02-24 20:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie].....The point being that Duke did time in Federal Prison for offenses that get a slap on the wrist if you're unlucky and don't even get noticed much of the time.
There are hundreds of tax code and campaign fundraising laws that exist on the books but are rarely enforced, except in the case where they prove to be a useful tool for going after someone they want to get rid of for political reasons. It's very convenient for the Feds - they can say "We believe Duke has his First Amendment Rights. We aren't indicting him for his political views" when in fact they are. Otherwise, just about every elected official would be serving time in a Federal penitentiary for something along the lines of Duke's trumped up charges.[/QUOTE]If you want to get into reasons why there aren't any viable third parties, that's one reason. You think federal campaign laws are onerous for individual candidates, you ought to see the ones for parties. You set one up, and you think "ah the fed's won't prosecute me if I don't keep track of 10cent contributions from my grandmother". Wait again.
It was interesting listening to Putin this morning on CNN. Bush attacked Russia's lack of press freedom and need to ensure real democracy, and Putin and some Russian journalists said "hey wait, we have a lot of freedom, and while we aren't perfect, you certainly aren't either".
Dubbya just hemmed and hawed for about 5 minutes " a-a-a" "he obviously almost flunked speech at Yale. The man obviously will have to refer this question back to the neocons - I don't think he's ever had an original thought in his life.
2005-02-24 20:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]If you want to get into reasons why there aren't any viable third parties, that's one reason. You think federal campaign laws are onerous for individual candidates, you ought to see the ones for parties. You set one up, and you think "ah the fed's won't prosecute me if I don't keep track of 10cent contributions from my grandmother". Wait again.
The hypocrisy lies in that a Third Party candidate (at least if it's somebody like Duke, who breaks taboos and shakes things up politically) won't get away with an undocumented 10 cent contribution from grandma, while Democrats and Republicans who play the game and have the backing of their party apparatchiks can rake in millions from slush funds without anyone uttering a note of protest.
It was interesting listening to Putin this morning on CNN. Bush attacked Russia's lack of press freedom and need to ensure real democracy, and Putin and some Russian journalists said "hey wait, we have a lot of freedom, and while we aren't perfect, you certainly aren't either".
Third parties certainly do much better in Putin's Russia than they ever did in Bush or Clinton's America. In Russian elections (like French or Italian elections), there are visible and well-known candidates all across the political spectrum, as opposed to the non-choice between Clinton "new Democrat" and Bush "neoconservative." And these multiparty candidates get actual air time on Russian television, unlike Third Party candidates here.
Dubbya just hemmed and hawed for about 5 minutes " a-a-a" "he obviously almost flunked speech at Yale. The man obviously will have to refer this question back to the neocons - I don't think he's ever had an original thought in his life.[/QUOTE]
My dream would be to take Shrub's handlers away from him just for a day, and see how he does when forced to answer questions in an interview or make a speech. We all know what would happen: he would implode. Bush's stupidity disgraces the office of the Presidency more than Clinton's lechery and crudity ever did.
2005-02-25 10:38 | User Profile
That earpiece unit which fed Junior answers and quips during the Kerry debates is inoperable on Junior's junkets where other nations control the Radio spectrum.
America's historical rejection of a parliamentary system--which would have allowed for the proportional representation of dissident parties--is the single greatest failing of our political system, where 50% + 1 vote takes all...
2005-02-25 17:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]And what to cyber web-ratings mean in the real world? Very little. Except to purely cyber-people.
It wouldn't surprise people to learn that Linder makes any sort of claim for himself, but it would surprise me if they believe him or you, other than the synchophants. Doubtless you'd also claim Hitler was a "libertarian". :lol:[/QUOTE] Okie, since I am not a big fan of Linder, would you take my word for it?
I knew Linder back on a private email list before there was a VNN.
He was most certainly a small government, libertarian, "free market", "big government hating" type back then, and he had more than a few arguments with those on the list who were not enamoured of libertarian economics or American-style conservativism with its Republican, small government, anti-European mindset.
Nothing I've seen on VNN convinces me that he has changed his mind on these issues; his view seems to be that all you have to do is remove the Jews, and whites will spontaneously revert back to 19th century liberal republican freeholders.
I believe one of his "libertarian" proposals for getting rid of illegal aliens, back then, was the idea of placing a bounty on Mexican scalps. Let the free market take care of the problem! I kid you not.
I wonder how much of the resentment here is due to Linder's opinions about Christianity, and how much are due to his (gutter) style.
I view things like VNN as a necessary evil - there are some folks who will find that approach useful, at least for a time (until they get more sophisticated); for everyone else, there are better ways. It's not as though VNN doesn't make good points now and again; it is just invariably the case that Linder will take a good idea and push it to an absurd extreme, like the person with a hammer to whom everything looks like a nail.
2005-02-25 17:22 | User Profile
Wasn't the media spin that was put out was that Duke was "going to casinos, gambling his contributor's money away"?
So if the actual charges were technicalities in campaign finance laws, that means that the story about Duke visiting casinos was simply media "spin" to put Duke in a bad public light and to divert public attention away from the niggling legal details, I assume?
None of his actual contributors ever complained about Duke's lifestyle, after all.
2005-03-07 18:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w] I wonder how much of the resentment here is due to Linder's opinions about Christianity, and how much are due to his (gutter) style. [/QUOTE]
I think you've put your finger on it, grep.