← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Franco
Thread ID: 17331 | Posts: 20 | Started: 2005-03-16
2005-03-16 02:04 | User Profile
Faileoconservatism: Failure Posing As Success
[url]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2005/Staff031405Faileocons.htm[/url]
2005-03-16 02:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Faileoconservatism: Failure Posing As Success
[url]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2005/Staff031405Faileocons.htm[/url]
---------------[/QUOTE]I can see why you don't post the text. Its pretty silly stuff to have to look at.
2005-03-16 03:32 | User Profile
Silly isn't the word for it.
It's just too bad that those utterers and pointers -- known as paleonconservatives, aka [u]faileoconservatives[/u]...
Clever! I bet Alex came up with that one!
And that's why VNN had to be created.
And to think, I thought it was for Alex to have a soapbox to holler from.
VNN went to bat for the Whites of America because the faileoconservatives didn't kike-name -...
I'll post it. [COLOR=Sienna] Faileoconservatism: Failure Posing As Success
by VNN Staff
14 March 2005
For five decades they uttered and pointed, they gurgled and gesticulated, they gasped and pantomimed. And they looked pretty good doing it. Folks in Iowa were impressed. With those fellows guarding America's traditional culture against the "liberals," all was well - or so some folks thought.
It's just too bad that those utterers and pointers -- known as paleonconservatives, aka faileoconservatives -- never got around to performing the most important task of modern cultural preservation: they never fingered the Jew as America's prime enemy.
And that's why VNN had to be created. VNN went to bat for the Whites of America because the faileoconservatives didn't kike-name - they were sitting over in the dugout instead, filing their nails, giggling and whispering about shadowy people doing shadowy things for reasons that they Couldn't Talk About in public. The faileocons knew they looked cute in their pigtails and knee-socks, they couldn't risk bespoiling their finery in anti-kike recreation. It was better to let the 'Nazis' handle the action - nevermind that the Nazis had no significant voice in America.
Yes, during all those years after WWII, instead of hive-naming, the faileocons did something else. They reported on a far safer substitute for the Jews: "liberals." The faileogals rattled about the "liberals" who were destroying Western culture, the "liberals" who were smoking marijuana and stumping for Marxism, the "liberals" who were pushing ugly art. Or, the faileosisters whined that "leftists" were supporting the UN and feminism and gun control. "Leftists" were destroying traditional family values. Yep, "liberals" and "leftists" were evil on two feet. Not the Jews. Nope. Never - unless the Jews were cleverly called "Likudniks," but even that word could be a career-ender, so it was used sparingly.
And now that the faileocons' girly-girl inaction has sunk America knee-deep in Leninism, feminism, multiculturalism and endless other kikeisms, and now that the faileocons know it, they still won't name the Jew! How can these slough-offs be called anything but faileocons? But maybe it doesn't matter now, because their jig is about up. Almost everyone can see now that their I-don't-see-any-schnozzim act has nearly shit-canned the republic.
The faileocon leaders could have passed out copies of The International Jew at church gatherings and bingo halls. And the faileocon writers could have gently hive-named in, say, 1957, before America's publishing world was Goldberged and Weinsteined. But they had better things to do - like criticize JFK for the Bay of Pigs. That was much more important, don't you know.
Even if they do fly the Johnny Reb on the 4th of July, the faileocons ain't heroes in any way, shape or form. On their decades-long watch, America was kiked, bageled, bar-mitzvahed and matzo-balled. Put another way, the faileogals were workin' upstairs while yidburglars were workin' downstairs. And when they finally called the police, the faileocons deliberately gave the cops a false description of the crooks! How does that make the faileocons heroes? All the faleocons can do these days is gesture towards the neo-Nazis and the Klan as the culprits who failed the U.S.-of-A. while they work up a better alibi (after all, neo-Nazis weren't exactly a force in the literary world during the 1950s, and someone just might notice that).
The faileoconservatives shirked their duty when America needed them most. And no amount of Johnny Rebin' and Sam Francisin' is gonna change that fact. The Tribe needs to be named with forthrightness and gusto. Code words like "amen corner" won't win America back. Only the word "Jew," used repeatedly until it sticks, will save America from Marxism, feminism and third-worldness.
If you want to take your culture back from Hymie, forget the faileosisters and their toy poodles. Follow VNN instead. [/COLOR] VNN STAFF
This will make a matching bookend to the crap that Schwartz wrote.
2005-03-16 04:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I can see why you don't post the text. Its pretty silly stuff to have to look at.[/QUOTE]
Okie, you should know that I frequently don't post text [just links].
Question: if the paleoconservatives didn't fail America, who did? As the essay notes, the "Nazis" in America had no power after WWII, so they couldn't "fail" America. So who failed America?
2005-03-16 04:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Okie, you should know that I frequently don't post text [just links].
Question: if the paleoconservatives didn't fail America, who did?
I thought the Jews did. Now you're trying to set up the paleo's instead? Traiterous little wretches.
As the essay notes, the "Nazis" in America had no power after WWII, so they couldn't "fail" America. So who failed America?
----------[/QUOTE]Well the jews didn't fail America. And the "Nazi's" never were Americans, so they can't be blamed for the failure of America. Isn't that exactly the same argument the Jews use?
Actually Jesse Jackson says that blacks never can't be blamed for failure, becase they never had any power. Maybe you're claiming Nazi's are more like nig****.
In any event, though the Nazi's never got very big, there were Nazi's around. The German-American Bund, etc. If they never got any power, it was because they were such great failures. Typical of Nazi's, that they use their past failures as somehow justifying their chances of future success. Nig**** are smarter than that.
And as to paleo's being responsible for America's failure 50 years ago, you need to study paleoconservatism. Paleoism, as studies not, is actually newer than Nazism, (less than 30 years old). So actualism "Faleoism" by this measure of success merits much more than "Seig Failizism".
But I can see you're dissatisfied with the answer who failed America. So I'll give you some choices
[list] []Heterosexuals []Whites []Males []Gunowners []Property Owners []Christians (I save the best for last. However with Christianity out of the way in Europe now, (I'm just waiting for you guys big move) [/list] Take your pick. (Don't tell me, Alex and you aren't any of this?)
2005-03-16 04:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]So the "Nazi's" never were Americans, so they can't be blamed for the failure of America. Isn't that exactly the same argument the Jews use?[/QUOTE] "Never were Americans?" What does that mean?
Besides, that doesn't answer my question: who failed America?
2005-03-16 05:01 | User Profile
Franco,
Instead of "who failed America?" a better question might be "who could have succeeded in post WW II America?" It was rather hard to get people to listen to the "name the Jew" line after people had been exposed to the films of the concentration camps. That film really was the best thing that could have happen to those who had Zionist aspirations for it created sympathy where previously it didn't exist.
I can tell you who came the closest to succeeding [B]prior[/B] to American involvement in WW II and that was the America First committee, a number of whom were paleoconservatives. The only reason they failed in keeping us out was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. Maybe we should all just blame the Japanese fascists for their stupidity instead of rehashing an event which most people know little and couldn't care less about.
2005-03-16 05:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Franco,
Instead of "who failed America?" a better question might be "who could have succeeded in post WW II America?" It was rather hard to get people to listen to the "name the Jew" line after people had been exposed to the films of the concentration camps. That film really was the best thing that could have happen to those who had Zionist aspirations for it created sympathy where previously it didn't exist.
I can tell you who came the closest to succeeding [B]prior[/B] to American involvement in WW II and that was the America First committee, a number of whom were paleoconservatives. The only reason they failed in keeping us out was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. Maybe we should all just blame the Japanese fascists for their stupidity instead of rehashing an event which most people know little and couldn't care less about.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the America First Committee did a pretty good job of warning people, until Lindbergh was blacklisted for his 1941 Iowa speech [in which he Jew-named]. After that, and Pearl Harbor, the game was pretty much up.
[edited]
2005-03-18 01:22 | User Profile
"Faileoconservatism". How clever. Did David Frum come up with this? Or the combined genius of Frum and Max Boot??
Since most of the prominent paleo-cons were mainstream conservatives 20 years ago-- PJB, PCR, Sobran, et al.-- it makes no sense to attribute any past failures to paleo-conservatism. There really isn't any history yet. I would bet most of the paleo-cons here on OD thought of themselves as merely conservative until relatively recently. I know I did. I think Free Republic has done more to vivify this newly emerging paleo-conservatism than anything else. It would interesting to hear some conversion stories of new paleo-cons/new OD members to get some anecdotal info.
2005-03-18 01:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Yes, the America First Committee did a pretty good job of warning people, until Lindbergh was blacklisted for his 1941 Iowa speech [in which he Jew-named]. After that, and Pearl Harbor, the game was pretty much up.
[edited]-----------[/QUOTE]So it did a good job, [B]until [/B] the alleged jew-naming. I don't follow.
Why one standard for them, and another for us?
2005-03-18 06:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]So it did a good job, [B]until [/B] the alleged jew-naming. I don't follow.
Why one standard for them, and another for us?[/QUOTE]
After Lindbergh was blacklisted, the movement pretty much died off. Because it was also around that time that Father Coughlin was yanked off the radio, and his bulk mail permit canceled by FDR's Jew-Jewy cabal.
2005-03-18 07:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]After Lindbergh was blacklisted, the movement pretty much died off. Because it was also around that time that Father Coughlin was yanked off the radio, and his bulk mail permit canceled by FDR's Jew-Jewy cabal.
------------[/QUOTE]True, there was somre pretty heavy handed repression then, the blacklist, trials, etc. But by some standards the repression nowadays is cetainly no less threatening, if maybe slightly more subtle in [B]some [/B] ways. It would also I think justify the some sort of crypsis, as opposed to the brazenness insisted by the "Name the Jew" monologue.
2005-03-18 08:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]It would interesting to hear some conversion stories of new paleo-cons/new OD members to get some anecdotal info.[/QUOTE]
Essentially one could just say I just followed Buchanan from '92 (and stayed true to true conservatism). But the core issues on which I began to dissent from mainstream conservatism, or the national GOP if you will, were as follows: anti-"free" trade that subverts our sovereignty and economic independence, foreign policy (isolationist, not interventionist - crystallized by my opposition to the first Gulf war), anti-federalism/states' rights and full square opposition to immigration of any kind. A soft racial/ethic component was added after my introduction to MacDonald's 'Culture of Critique'. Still have the email sent to me from 'Dianne' way back in early 2001 giving me an anonymous head's up to MacD's work in order to understand why we send so much money to Israel. So 'Dianne' if you're out there somewhere, Thanks! I think. :)
2005-03-18 14:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Essentially one could just say I just followed Buchanan from '92 (and stayed true to true conservatism). But the core issues on which I began to dissent from mainstream conservatism, or the national GOP if you will, were as follows: anti-"free" trade that subverts our sovereignty and economic independence, foreign policy (isolationist, not interventionist - crystallized by my opposition to the first Gulf war), anti-federalism/states' rights and full square opposition to immigration of any kind. A soft racial/ethic component was added after my introduction to MacDonald's 'Culture of Critique'. Still have the email sent to me from 'Dianne' way back in early 2001 giving me an anonymous head's up to MacD's work in order to understand why we send so much money to Israel. So 'Dianne' if you're out there somewhere, Thanks! I think. :)[/QUOTE] I think most folks within mainstream conservatism are practicing racialists, or racists. I used to post some pretty racist stuff about blacks on Free Republic and I would guess that about 90% of the follow-up posts would join me in criticizing blacks. And while occasionally the thread would get pulled I would never get booted off FR. Same goes with hispanics. Meanwhile I have been kicked off of FR for innocuous stuff about aid to Israel.
2005-03-18 16:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]After Lindbergh was blacklisted, the movement pretty much died off. Because it was also around that time that Father Coughlin was yanked off the radio, and his bulk mail permit canceled by FDR's Jew-Jewy cabal.
------------[/QUOTE]
It was actually the Catholic Church which finally took Coughlin off the air.
The New Deal regarded him as an ally during the peak of his popularity (35 Million listeners each week) for his pointed attacks on banking abuses...
2005-03-18 17:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Essentially one could just say I just followed Buchanan from '92 (and stayed true to true conservatism). But the core issues on which I began to dissent from mainstream conservatism, or the national GOP if you will, were as follows: anti-"free" trade that subverts our sovereignty and economic independence, foreign policy (isolationist, not interventionist - crystallized by my opposition to the first Gulf war), anti-federalism/states' rights and full square opposition to immigration of any kind. A soft racial/ethic component was added after my introduction to MacDonald's 'Culture of Critique'. Still have the email sent to me from 'Dianne' way back in early 2001 giving me an anonymous head's up to MacD's work in order to understand why we send so much money to Israel. So 'Dianne' if you're out there somewhere, Thanks! I think. :)[/QUOTE]
That's tracks pretty closely my conversion story. I became a racist in the Navy (honorable discharge 1982), at least to the extent that I frankly admitted to myself and to friends that there's no way we can live with blacks. I remember one of my female cousins who was living not far from the base I was stationed at saying at a party of young mostly liberal college students "we must write off the black male" and nobody blinked an eye because they all knew the score.
But even then my racism was directed against blacks was not specifically pro-white. I foolishly thought that others could live among us in peace, especially Asians. I had and still have high regard for the Koreans, for example, but I realize now that living together in a multi-culti America just ain't workable. I was a libertarian in the 1980s and I wanted to believe Ronald Reagan's stuff about a happy America with people from all over (except blacks, give me a break) with bustling ports, and if only we could get rid of these darned liberals. But I see now that this was really just a defensive stance against the Racial Extortion Coalition.
I realize now that it's all about RACE.
I had become Jew-aware mostly due to the fact that my legal practice got involved in Russian trade from the early 1990's on.
My memory on this is not entirely accurate, but I started posting regularly at FR about 1998. During a discussion about some shenanigans Israel was pulling (I think it was the Pollard affair and then some sort of revelations about Israel leaking secrets to China) that I discovered that lots of Freepers put Israel first. I also had discovered this previouisly in my Jewish colleagues. During one of those debates somebody Freepmailed me with the address for Yggdrasil's webpage. I read all the books Ygg recommends and it was like a lightbulb switching on in my head. It suddenly all made sense.
When McDonald's book came out the game was over for me.
All of this directed me to the Traditionalist wing of the RCC, where I've been ever since.
2005-03-18 19:13 | User Profile
I was always a libertarian-leaning conservative. I read Arthur Jensen as a young man, and he erased any doubt about the reality of black-white IQ differences. I reluctantly supported the Gulf War, but cheered on Pat Buchanan, who was opposing it for all the right reasons. William Buckley's attacks on him and Sobran made me realize there was something wrong in the conservative movement. I discovered Chronicles ten years ago. Francis convinced me that we were in a class struggle, and political action alone would not win it. I found The Last Ditch six years ago. They didn't convert me to anarchism, but they did expose me to Holocaust revisionism and Yggdrasil. Revisionism was the slap in the face that woke me up to Jewish domination of the media. Yggdrasil took me the rest of the way.
2005-03-18 20:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Only the word "Jew," used repeatedly until it sticks, will save America from Marxism, feminism and third-worldness.[/QUOTE]
Can't argue with this one, regardless of who failed who.
But I got news for you. New New America - the one we'd end up with after the implementation of either Linder's Operation Kike-Name [I]or [/I] Walter's Bunny Hop Crusade - might just be so unimaginably **ing horrible we'd be pining for this ** one within a week. It's always easy to be smart, afterwards.
2005-03-18 20:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]That's tracks pretty closely my conversion story. I became a racist in the Navy (honorable discharge 1982), at least to the extent that I frankly admitted to myself and to friends that there's no way we can live with blacks. I remember one of my female cousins who was living not far from the base I was stationed at saying at a party of young mostly liberal college students "we must write off the black male" and nobody blinked an eye because they all knew the score.
But even then my racism was directed against blacks was not specifically pro-white. I foolishly thought that others could live among us in peace, especially Asians. I had and still have high regard for the Koreans, for example, but I realize now that living together in a multi-culti America just ain't workable. I was a libertarian in the 1980s and I wanted to believe Ronald Reagan's stuff about a happy America with people from all over (except blacks, give me a break) with bustling ports, and if only we could get rid of these darned liberals. But I see now that this was really just a defensive stance against the Racial Extortion Coalition.
I realize now that it's all about RACE.
I had become Jew-aware mostly due to the fact that my legal practice got involved in Russian trade from the early 1990's on.
My memory on this is not entirely accurate, but I started posting regularly at FR about 1998. During a discussion about some shenanigans Israel was pulling (I think it was the Pollard affair and then some sort of revelations about Israel leaking secrets to China) that I discovered that lots of Freepers put Israel first. I also had discovered this previouisly in my Jewish colleagues. During one of those debates somebody Freepmailed me with the address for Yggdrasil's webpage. I read all the books Ygg recommends and it was like a lightbulb switching on in my head. It suddenly all made sense.
When McDonald's book came out the game was over for me.
All of this directed me to the Traditionalist wing of the RCC, where I've been ever since.[/QUOTE]I come from an Irish Catholic background. I can recall always coming in contact with loud-mouthed, old, K of C guys who held positions identical to Hutton Gibson's. I always dismissed them as stupid, provincial bigots. Now, of course, I view them as sages.
2005-03-18 20:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]I can recall always coming in contact with loud-mouthed, old, K of C guys who held positions identical to Hutton Gibson's.[/QUOTE]The only thing I know about Gibson is he rejects the Holocaust story. Is that what you're talking about? If so, there's a lot more skepticism out there than I realized.