← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · PaleoconAvatar

Thread 3140

Thread ID: 3140 | Posts: 69 | Started: 2002-10-19

PaleoconAvatar [OP]

2002-10-19 02:57 | User Profile

A link to a discussion at Polinco about paleoconservatism, which also mentions the OD Forum, is located here: [url=http://www.polinco.com/forum/showthread.php?s=3a549c16d667323b94bd3280f2173cb5&postid=4921#post4921]http://www.polinco.com/forum/showthread.ph...d=4921#post4921[/url]

il ragno

2002-10-19 03:39 | User Profile

I got a good laugh out of the OD RUN BY WUSSIES thread over there.

[url=http://www.polinco.com/forum/showthread.php?s=712f903053ed54fea0d4ece49b36c65c&threadid=1155]http://www.polinco.com/forum/showthread.ph...c&threadid=1155[/url]

If they're not manfully holding their hands over open flames, judging the rest of us and finding us woefully wanting in bloodlust and fanaticism, they're blinking back tears wondering why they're only averaging 1.2 posts a day.

Nahh - there couldn't be any connection.

PaleoconAvatar

2002-10-19 04:04 | User Profile

il ragno,

It's interesting to see how things have polarized out between the two forums since the demise of the original Sam Francis Online Forum. Most of the SFOF membership seems to have settled here at OD, and Polinco is rather inactive, with only a few posters still diligently "manning their posts," so to speak. I used to double-post a lot of my posts and articles both on OD and Polinco so as to be able to speak to all the members of the old SFOF, that they'd all be "on the same page," whether they be here or there.

Polinco does have some interesting features, ones that excited me when the project was first launched. The forum sections devoted to the Jim Giles campaign as well as the Pro-White Mass Political Platform section--moderated by FAEM's Maguire, are two interesting and useful aspects.

What does concern the Polinco Forum is that the resource remains underused. For some reason, it's been difficult to generate a "critical mass" there of posters. This may be changing, though, since I've been noticing new sign-ups. Perhaps good things await that forum in the future; it may yet bloom. I often wonder what will happen with it.

il ragno

2002-10-19 04:35 | User Profile

I've posted over there a handful of times way back when, and it's not a board without merit. Any forum w/ Wintermute participating, for instance, is worth looking at.

But boards draw or repel traffic based on something besides Luck of the Draw. POLINCO's problems are based on a kind of utterly humorless Bunker Mentality, it seems to me. Too many manifestoes posing as posts (followed by angry outbursts at all the people not responding - ?). The tone throughout is relentlessly harsh, and, combined with the low traffic the site gets, results in the perception that it's basically three or four True Believers polishing each other's boots, and judging the rest of the online paleo/WN world by whether or not their censorware will allow you to type "ni***r" unabridged.

Plus I can't remember the last time a newcomer there received so much as a "welcome aboard", for Pete's sake!

PaleoconAvatar

2002-10-19 05:04 | User Profile

judging the rest of the online paleo/WN world by whether or not their censorware will allow you to type "nir" unabridged.*

I understand your larger point, but in fairness, I'd be surprised to see that particular word you suggested above being posted at Polinco. Stormfront, almost certainly, but not Polinco. The word is unprofessional, and Polinco came from the same roots as many of the posters at OD--a more intellectual and sophisticated crowd from both the old Sam Francis Forum and the paleo Freepers (the only bright posters that board ever had) that the Amen Corner purged.

I think privately I've used the shorter phrase "the nigs" on rare occasion, to be honest, but that's because of a loyalty to a family connection--my great-grandmother on my mother's side used that phrase, according to a story once told to me by my mother. I sparingly will use it, and am always conscious of that story when I use it--it brings a smile to my face to give a nod to such a family practice that's endured despite the politically correct environment White Americans are condemned to live in.

il ragno

2002-10-19 05:41 | User Profile

Fair point. Actually, I think I used said term in an old Polinco post! So I'm hardly one to talk here.

Well, as I said, there's some quality material at Polinco - but, for whatever reason, they've mislabelled the 'honey' and 'vinegar' somewhere along the line. Hence, no flies.

PaleoconAvatar

2002-10-19 06:11 | User Profile

Well, as I said, there's some quality material at Polinco - but, for whatever reason, they've mislabelled the 'honey' and 'vinegar' somewhere along the line. Hence, no flies.

Personally, I've never noticed that myself since I tend to value political thought over personal pleasantries, but I understand that some people may be more attuned to the interpersonal dimension. I must have a low "Emotional Quotient," to swipe a phrase from the pop psychologists, but I consider that one of my strengths since America is a "sensitive nation" these days, and her epitaph will read, "She had a high Emotional Quotient."

But, I guess the current EQ mix at Polinco that you describe, if accurate (and I'm not one qualified to judge since I kinda like and respect what you call "relentlessly harsh") is dependent on the mix of posters there, which isn't permanent. There are always new faces that may come along and sign up, and they might eventually spark something that might catch more flies. It's kind of hard to judge the situation as it stands currently since only a few posters make contributions now at any one time, it's not really a representative or natural condition. I, for example, haven't had much to say there since the material has been kinda slow. Lots of OD posters probably signed up at Polinco too at one point, so there have been/are good people in the works. Maybe they just go where the action is, and it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

il ragno

2002-10-19 08:20 | User Profile

Well, there's all sorts of 'relentlessly harsh', PalAv. Certainly, nobody's confusing Alex Linder with Mary Sunshine anytime soon, but there's an amped-up, lively electricity to his prose. The problem I have with Polinco -and by no means does this reflect any opinion but my own - is stodginess.

Now Linderstyle freaks a lot of people out, which I realize; conversely, there's a meatiness to the Triskelion-type Polinco material that engages a lot of folks like yourself. Certainly, there are no bad guys in this equation - this is more 'different strokes for different folks', which I don't have a problem with. Whatever gets the job done. (On the other hand, thread-titles like "OD RUN BY WUSSIES" don't indicate the feeling is mutual.)

I guess if I had to encapsulate my own view, it would mirror a Linder comment he made the other day, viz "Politics isn't interesting, merely important." Sounds flip, and hell, it IS flip, but there's a lot of truth to it nevertheless.

Re 'pleasantries' and 'emotional quotient', you may be misreading my emphasis. It's not 'happy talk' I like to read but lively prose. If you have something important to say - if you're waging a war to capture hearts and minds - it behooves you to engage the fence-sitters with a little rhetorical razzle-dazzle, at least until they're safely inside the tent. As POLINCO's problems revolve around low traffic, a few 'personal pleasantries' and a livelier overall tone wouldn't hurt and might do them a world of good besides.

PaleoconAvatar

2002-10-19 08:58 | User Profile

Now Linderstyle freaks a lot of people out, which I realize; conversely, there's a meatiness to the Triskelion-type Polinco material that engages a lot of folks like yourself. Certainly, there are no bad guys in this equation - this is more 'different strokes for different folks', which I don't have a problem with. Whatever gets the job done. (On the other hand, thread-titles like "OD RUN BY WUSSIES" don't indicate the feeling is mutual.)

Good points. I'm one for "methodological pluralism." There are plenty of ways to skin a cat.

Re 'pleasantries' and 'emotional quotient', you may be misreading my emphasis. It's not 'happy talk' I like to read but lively prose. If you have something important to say - if you're waging a war to capture hearts and minds - it behooves you to engage the fence-sitters with a little rhetorical razzle-dazzle, at least until they're safely inside the tent. As POLINCO's problems revolve around low traffic, a few 'personal pleasantries' and a livelier overall tone wouldn't hurt and might do them a world of good besides.

I agree. Forums can only benefit by having lots of different posting styles. Your posts often make my day, in this respect. I admit I'd grow a little bored and jaded if everyone's content read exactly the same as Triskelion's. And T is doing a great job on that thread--I just wonder why he's saying it there instead of here--I'd think that if he seeks to critique paleoconservatism, he'd come to OD and find some paleocons to try it with. Heck, now that this post is here, maybe some interested OD paleocons will go there to converse with T. This kinda makes me laugh, though, that the two "camps" seem shy about talking to each other.

il ragno

2002-10-19 09:24 | User Profile

I've always thought that the actual reason most of us don't frequent both sites in equal measure is time. Boards like these attract people with a strong ideological & emotional commitment to paleo/WN points of view, and they tend to put thought, sweat and heart's blood into their posts, all of which is somewhat time-consuming. One strength shared by both forums that there's very little half-assed half-stepping to be found at either. Factor in the usual bugbears of work, family and other commitments that eat up the clock and I think what happens is that Poster X tends to pick his poison and stick to it.

Neither OD nor Polinco is an FR deal where you log on, trade short venomous exchanges with your ideological foes, and log off within a half-hour. We're more like the Wild Bunch in cyberspace, outlaw commentators advocating outlaw beliefs - if you don't mean it, y'don't do it in the first place. I'd bet money the average regular at either forum logs off a lot more spent/exhausted than the neo-puppets whose entire intellectual commitment is restricted to waving a miniature made-in-Malaysia American flag, cheering J. E. Dubya, booing Saddam, and shouting down any and every naysayer criticizing The War For Eretz Yisro'el. Given the built-in time constraints inherent in this scenario, the only really unforgivable sin is wasting that precious time engaging in counterproductive intramural spats.

Texas Dissident

2002-10-20 12:37 | User Profile

One thing I've never understood about Polinco, and perhaps you two learned men can help me out here, is exactly why the folks in charge there seem to have such a bee in their bonnet about our site. As far as I know, neither myself or any admin here has ever made a public statement about that site. Despite this, they seem to always go out of their way to take public shots at this site and board. I simply don't understand their hostility, but admittedly I've never really visited their pages to any extent, my exposure being limited to links that show up on my site referral tracking lists, etc. In my opinion, they unduly criticize our broad position on matters, but we are what we are, even if we don't toe some kind of imaginary ideological line they think we should.

Dirt roads and white lines And all kinds of stop signs But I'll stand right here where I'm at 'Cause I wear my own kind of hat

Mighty Merle

jay

2002-10-20 14:00 | User Profile

Dissident; They act like that over at Polinco because they are assholes. Gosh, that didn't have a lot of blood & sweat in it, but sometimes the brute truth is much better.

When someone has an opinion, I don't attack them. They can think whatever they want. At Polinco, you get flamed a lot when you say anything in disagreement. Some fool over there (Vlad I believe) can't even type out a coherent English sentence. Il Ragno is right about not having time - we don't have time to read such drivel.

Honestly, those people over there, I'd never associate with. I'd rather hang out w/the FR people.

-J

Leveller

2002-10-20 14:26 | User Profile

Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Oct 20 2002, 12:37 ....exactly why the folks in charge there seem to have such a bee in their bonnet about our site....

Tex, maybe because so many SFOF'ers ended up here rather than there. I'm just speculating - I haven't looked at Polinco for a long time - but when SFOF was closing down, OD and Polinco were where most people seemed to be heading. I myself thought Polinco would be 'SFOF continued', but it didn't quite happen, so now I lurk here. ;)

PaleoconAvatar

2002-10-20 19:33 | User Profile

Originally posted by Leveller@Oct 20 2002, 10:26 > Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Oct 20 2002, 12:37 ....exactly why the folks in charge there seem to have such a bee in their bonnet about our site....**

I get the sense that some Polinco members feel a grievance against OD due to threads that they claim have been censored or otherwise deleted. Whenever I see an OD-related post at Polinco, such incidents are usually mentioned. The thing is that no details are ever really provided about the content of these "disappeared" threads. I have no way to confirm whether it's true or not, or whether it happens as frequently as some claim it does.

It's only happened to me maybe two or three times. When I first signed up at OD, about the same time as I did Polinco, shortly thereafter a VNN article that I posted was taken down, and I was told it was because the source came from an ideological direction that wasn't really accomodated by OD's mission statement. As time went on, though, I noticed that VNN articles did begin to appear, often without any identifying information that it came from VNN (no link-back to the original source or other attribution). I thought this a clever maneuver at getting out information that would otherwise not be censored but for the source. Later I discovered that the moderators at OD now judge VNN articles solely on their merits case-by-case rather than by the source--intellectually-oriented, well-thought-out commentary pieces from VNN stay up, while anything calling for violence or illegality does not.

As for the second time it's happened to me, I'm not sure about the second time, the article may have been lost for some other reason, or it might not have posted right--I never got any message about it being taken down. The second time I posted "White Leadership Academy #6" from faem.com --the basic thrust of that article was that the GOP is a false front and needs to be destroyed--by legal means--specifically by setting up informational webpages that expose dirt on local GOP figures, similar in format to the way the nastiness of Morris Dees is exposed at deeswatch.com. Not sure why that would have been taken down, maybe it wasn't. My solution for this loss was this: I simply made the case for the ideas in that article in a thread of my own, and I posted a number of links with further information--including a link to FAEM's WLA #6. The post survived, and was well-received by a number of posters. The key here is creativity--rephrase things, provide links, find ways to spread your message that can't be thwarted. Persist and adapt, rather than withdraw and criticize like the boy who took his ball and went home.

The final time anything has happened regarding my posts was in a thread with Polichinello, when I made a remark about where Jews should ultimately end up in this country. That was perceived as crossing the line into calling for violence and illegality, so I deleted those comments myself when this was brought to my attention via private messaging, because I did not want the entire thread to be taken down since other posters had worked very hard on their posts, and the preservation of my small contribution was not worth spoiling it for everyone.

Now, my citation of these above incidents does not constitute complaining or whining on my part. Nor do I hold a grudge regarding all this. I simply move on and continue doing my thing despite these minor bumps in the road.

Some Polinco members are purists when it comes to post censorship--they tolerate none of it, in the name of truth and free speech and the like. The only banning/post deletion I've ever seen done at Polinco happened to a poster named "Gold" (who some say was an incarnation of SFOF's Leo)--and it took a long time for him to go--he was given several warnings by the Admin there. Basically, he spent his time swearing at and otherwise directing ad hominems at other specific forum members as well as the forum as a whole.

Hence, purists on the censorship issue tend to criticize OD the most. I see their point, in many ways, but at the same time I recognize the constraints of the real world. Some of those constraints include the fact that the OD Forum does not belong to me, nor is it required to cater to me. The situation is infinitely better at OD than FR, where I would not be permitted to exist, and my cyber-existence has been extinguished there close to 8 times or so since November, 2001, before I declared them a lost cause and gave up. I was sick of the same FR posters pinging each other to swoop down to assault me, and of course, they knew who I was from my writing style and such and they'd make disparaging personal remarks, post my picture, and all that sort of thing that demonstrated their maturity level.

I've decided that it makes sense to maintain a presence on OD and find more "clever maneuvers" of the sort I describe above with the unattributed VNN articles. If certain forces seek to "radicalize" certain other OD paleocons, it seems to me that the most effective way to do this is to plant memes and seeds at OD--and maybe break out some of il ragno's honey. If the bulk of the SFOF membership has settled here at OD, then it makes sense to take the fight to them here. If my future posts are deleted or somehow edited or censored, then I'll find a way to rephrase to slip the kernel of truth I'm propagating past those "sensitivity alarms." As I said before, here I have the chance to experiment in ways I couldn't in a place like FR.

Rather than condemn the OD Forum or name-call or make vague statements about deleted posts, the way to victory for interested parties at Polinco is this: do what I've done above. Keep a specific record of what you posted, the name of the article, the URL link to its original place on the 'net, the URL of the post itself at OD, and a synopsis of what the article was about. When it disappears, say so, either here or at Polinco (it won't disappear at Polinco), and give these details.

This makes vague charges that are easily dismissed much more credible, and it creates a positive pressure for change. People will read about what you posted, and they can decide for themselves whether it should have been taken down or not--on the merits of that post and that deletion alone, on a case-by-case basis. No, you don't have to waste time doing this for every article, I'm sure the relevant parties know what types of material has a tendency to disappear. So, protect your material by this method. Should OD posters keep such records and publicize the results of their posts, I would think that very few posts would disappear from OD beyond those that might deserve to--such as crude material calling for violence, ad hominem attacks of other posters, pornographic pictures, and the like.

Campion Moore Boru

2002-10-20 21:55 | User Profile

Avatar,

The only censoring I've ever witnessed here is when The Linderous one, in his inimitable manner, barged onto the board like some caricature of J. Streicher. Acting like a Primate at the Bronx Zoo (the ones inside the cages), he proceeded to make monkey grunts and hurl feces at those who looked at him twice.

This isn't a flaming board. Its a board for individuals to express sentiments and attempt to congeal a common opinion. Base insults and mockery of one's deeply held religious convictions will never garner a convert here. I'm sure it works on some, but our Readers, though divergent on many issues are well read, and possess some modicum of self-esteem. Linder pulled a Times-Square Black Israelite act.

Too bad. I would like to hear him expound on his positions in a more intellectual, less O'Rourkian fashion. I was emailed the excised portion of his post wherein he used the material to liken himself to Christ on Calvary. Gimme a break.

I don't mind the castigation of Catholics, or Christians for that matter, when they act like witless baboons. But Al, you ain't gonna win anyone outside of the World Churchians with the rhetoric that was excised. I guess to Linederites, Thomas More, El Cid, Don Juan, the Czarina, the Crusades, et cetera were just "Semitcally Correct" buffoons. God knows what he thought of Fr. Coughlin.

And I even enjoy his humor. Grow up Alex. Learn to play with Adults.

il ragno

2002-10-20 22:17 | User Profile

One thing I've never understood about Polinco is exactly why the folks in charge there seem to have such a bee in their bonnet about our site.

Frustration. The typical Polinco post is manifesto-length and tends to stay up for days w/o responses.

Furthermore, since much of what's said over there is also said here (specifically in the case of 'current events'-type threads), I guess they're further frustrated by seeing the feedback they're not getting clogging this bandwidth.

Without getting into personalities or attacking anyone, I'll just reiterate my original position: the overall tone at Polinco is stodgy and humorless, reminiscent of a faction already planning their Night of the Long Knives w/o noticing there are only five or six people attending their torchlight rallies to begin with.

PaleoconAvatar

2002-10-21 02:20 | User Profile

Campion,

The only censoring I've ever witnessed here is when The Linderous one, in his inimitable manner, barged onto the board like some caricature of J. Streicher...Too bad. I would like to hear him expound on his positions in a more intellectual, less O'Rourkian fashion.

From what I've been able to gather, certain Polinco posters believe that their posts at OD have been deleted in the past, well before Alex Linder appeared here. I have no way to confirm if this is happening, or the frequency of such occurrences, since OD does not have the famous Comment #xx Removed by Moderator tag left behind when things get memory-holed. That at least was an enlightening barometer at Free Republic. This is why I would advise those who do make claims of censorship to be more specific in their charges, since it's more difficult to dismiss specificity. If those who feel they've been wronged come forward and say "I posted this specific article titled "X" from site so-and-so, and it was deleted," then people can look at what was posted and decide its merits, getting a better gauge of what's going on, and moving the issue toward resolution.

Alex Linder and Polinco are two separate, and largely unrelated, entities. Let's not allow our attention to be misdirected down tangential paths.

Having said that, I will note that Linder chose to sign up at OD and talk to us, although of late I've not seen him here--I'd have thought he'd have more endurance and stamina. To my knowledge, he did not sign up at Polinco, although the posters at Polinco would have given him a better reception. I'm not sure how these facts can be interpreted. I recall he mentioned that the posters here were bright and sophisticated (I'm paraphrasing from memory), and that was part of his motivation to make the time commitment to post here. Perhaps he chose OD so as not to limit himself to "preaching to the choir."

This isn't a flaming board. Its a board for individuals to express sentiments and attempt to congeal a common opinion. Base insults and mockery of one's deeply held religious convictions will never garner a convert here.

I've not seen any "flames" at OD, possibly excepting the famed Linder thread. I too find that a refreshing change from the state of affairs of many other forums as well as USENET.

Frederick William I

2002-10-21 04:47 | User Profile

Originally posted by Leveller@Oct 20 2002, 14:26 > Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Oct 20 2002, 12:37 ....exactly why the folks in charge there seem to have such a bee in their bonnet about our site....**

Things happened pretty much the way you described. In fact Jenifer (who seems to run it) was quote touchy about this at the time, and has been ever since, accussing us of splitting the SFOF group.

Actually, the split between OD and Polinco was over much more than just numbers though, as anyone who has followed Polinco knows. They are much more hardline linking and formally associating themselves with VNN and strongly attacking if not kicking off people who cross them, as can be seen on their site.

The biggest thing Jenifer was noted for before starting up her own forum was kicking off Latina Gals White Husband for posting anti-abortion pictures and generally (according to them) acting too much like a religious fanatic. I think that gives a good insight into their motivations and attitudes.

PaleoconAvatar

2002-10-21 06:06 | User Profile

Actually, the split between OD and Polinco was over much more than just numbers though, as anyone who has followed Polinco knows. They are much more hardline linking and formally associating themselves with VNN and strongly attacking if not kicking off people who cross them, as can be seen on their site.

These characterizations are inaccurate because there are no "links" on the Polinco site--it's a forum board, not a webpage. If anything, Polinco is closer to FAEM since FAEM's Maguire has a forum subsection there that he moderates. Polinco was mentioned in VNN Reader letters once or twice for interested parties to be aware of, and anyone can send in such announcements.

As far as being "hardline," I'm not sure about that. A number of threads indicate the opposite--including a post on the thread about paleoconservatism now under discussion here. A relevant quote from that Polinco thread:

As to fanatic comments with respect to violence I will say that this board has had very little such material and I see no reason to think that it will degenerate into a typical yahoo/resistance style board replete with Hollywood style Nazism. If someone happens to post such material it is incumbent upon genuine racialists to point out why such rhetoric is counter productive and morally wrong. It is of course true to say that the genocidal ravings of the Hollywood Nazi set are stupid, mindlessly abusive, strategically catastrophic and simply wrong headed but such cretins are simply not to be found here and if they do start posting I intend to demonstrate why they should not be accepted within genuine racial circles. Several posters, including Tsun and myself, have spent a great deal of time condemning in detail the lunatic fringe of the racist non movement as well as taking the NA to task for it's self indulgent ultra extremism so I feel it unfair to view this board has having been a sounding board for mindless fanaticism.

My impression is that most posters agree with Triskelion's position. In fact, certain rational and thoughtful Polinco posts have become articles at VNN, such as "A Practical Way to Help Advance the Struggle" located at [url=http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/index419.htm]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/index419.htm[/url] -- which calls on racially-aware White political groups to give up pointless rallies and leafleting and concentrate on community service to help their fellow kinsmen, painting houses, repairing playgrounds, and the like--and of course, having a literature table there. It's harder for the media to demonize that kind of activity.

VNN is not merely a repository for fire and brimstone, nor is Polinco. I think you're rather prejudiced in these matters, FW I, in the true sense of the term, so quick to paint with a broad brush, implying that everything associated with these sources is necessarily anti-Christian, totalitarian, and genocidal. I think I can guess why: it's because these outfits don't officially, from the start, ban and ridicule statements and individuals that can be taken by some to advocate these things. The policy at VNN and Polinco, as far as I can tell, is that people are free to make whatever case they want, and then those who disagree can make their case. You'll find a wide variety of views in these areas. They are not monolithic.

As far as strong attacks, that's subjective. There is no official policy that posters have to follow ideologically or in terms of religion, for that matter. One should not confuse the words and actions of individual posters with the forum as a whole. No one has been kicked out except openly-declared Jew Leo/Gold, and it took a while before he was bounced because he wouldn't actually engage in any debate over ideas, he just tossed out crude slurs, calling posters "rednecks" and the like. "Gold" was warned by the Admins several times, and of the two sub-forum moderators (who cannot actually totally ban a member, only edit/delete individual posts), only Maguire deleted Gold's invective in his area, so I'd say Polinco has a high tolerance level.

But, in fairness, some posters may have left because they felt other posters were critical of their religious beliefs. I believe Jay was one of these, he now posts here at OD, and I welcomed him to OD when he joined via private message, and we've conversed occasionally. I consider him a friend and an ally. I don't concern myself much about religion, personally, but I'm not going to battle over religion with someone who does and who otherwise agrees with me on a lot of things. Still, no one forced Jay to leave. There is no official "anti-religion" policy, and people are free to say whatever they wish, pro or con. There's even a Theology/Religion sub-forum there.

The biggest thing Jenifer was noted for before starting up her own forum was kicking off Latina Gals White Husband for posting anti-abortion pictures and generally (according to them) acting too much like a religious fanatic. I think that gives a good insight into their motivations and attitudes.

I don't know much about this incident. I rarely posted at SFOF, under the screen name thuleanfire. I became more active on internet forums once I learned SFOF's shut down was coming, since I guess one learns to appreciate things when they no longer have them. That was a wake-up call for me. When I discovered how these sorts of forums come under attack by the Establishment, I realized that the Establishment finds them to be of strategic value enough to allocate resources toward it, so I decided to get involved and contribute what I could to assist the Authentic Right.

Polinco's moderators only have a couple guidelines--they stop "personal vitriol, disgusting images, and slanderous attacks," and violators get three warnings. Pictures of aborted fetuses were mentioned to me as an example of "disgusting images," as was pornography, if I recall. There's no religious content behind it. One can advocate whatever one wants about abortion or anything else. Pictures may be worth a thousand words, but they aren't arguments in themselves, and they're not necessary to make one's case. Besides, I have to wonder how often such pictures were posted by LGWH--did it qualify as spam?

Frederick William I

2002-10-21 16:28 | User Profile

Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Oct 21 2002, 06:06 **But, in fairness, some posters may have left because they felt other posters were critical of their religious beliefs. I believe Jay was one of these, he now posts here at OD, and I welcomed him to OD when he joined via private message, and we've conversed occasionally. I consider him a friend and an ally. I don't concern myself much about religion, personally, but I'm not going to battle over religion with someone who does and who otherwise agrees with me on a lot of things. Still, no one forced Jay to leave. There is no official "anti-religion" policy, and people are free to say whatever they wish, pro or con. There's even a Theology/Religion sub-forum there.

The biggest thing Jenifer was noted for before starting up her own forum was kicking off Latina Gals White Husband for posting anti-abortion pictures and generally (according to them) acting too much like a religious fanatic. I think that gives a good insight into their motivations and attitudes.

I'm not a close follower of Polinco, but I suspect what you say in general about is mostly if not all true. But the Latina Gal's White Husband (LGWH) incident did leave a rather indelible impression on me and a lot of the rest of us about Polinco, in large part because it was Jenifer and the other Polinco people that orchestrated the whole thing (getting LGWH kicked off, for posting the anti-abortion pictures). There was a great deal of discussion over the whole thing, at it seemed that the pro-Polinco people were the ones following it more closely and have a more detailed description of the incident, which curiously, for the usually very open SFOF, was pulled and is no longer accessible. In fact all of LGWH's posts and threads were pulled, i.e. he was "nuked" in Free Republic parlance.

The whole episode really seemed a message that there were strict limits to the amount of fundamentalist Christian sermonizing and other deviations from WN orthodoxy, (i.e. LGWH's misogony of sorts) that the Polinco types would tolerate. I think that all their whining about our "censorship" has to be interpreted in light of their own well lack of tolerance. Jenifer basically said if SFOF didn't kick LGWH off all the Dutch Polinco people would leave.

Obviously they have an agenda of their own, which also includes censorship, and does not seem entirely compatible with OD's agenda, althoug it may not be obvious when the overall traffic level there is low (i.e. only the true believers posting).

PaleoconAvatar

2002-10-21 17:35 | User Profile

But the Latina Gal's White Husband (LGWH) incident did leave a rather indelible impression on me and a lot of the rest of us about Polinco, in large part because it was Jenifer and the other Polinco people that orchestrated the whole thing (getting LGWH kicked off, for posting the anti-abortion pictures). There was a great deal of discussion over the whole thing, at it seemed that the pro-Polinco people were the ones following it more closely and have a more detailed description of the incident, which curiously, for the usually very open SFOF, was pulled and is no longer accessible. In fact all of LGWH's posts and threads were pulled, i.e. he was "nuked" in Free Republic parlance.

I have sensed that the LGWH event was a turning point of sorts, and perhaps we can add that incident to the list of theories as to why Polinco remains an underused resource--this sort of discussion about why the fire might have gone out at that forum is a hot topic there on a lot of people's minds. I guess that history colors the present, and it can't be escaped. Thanks much for pointing this out, since it's an aspect of the issue I hadn't been well versed in. The LGWH incident was a bit before my time, all I really know is that one side says he was persecuted for sticking to his Christianity, and the other side says that he was some sort of spammer or disruptor who didn't seek to contribute to the discussion in good faith. Perhaps there's truth in both sides of the issue.

In the abstract, I think censorship of any sort is regrettable, which is why I never deleted "Gold's" posts at Polinco--I was of the opinion that his posts hurt his own cause because he was making such an ass of himself. I figured given enough rope he'd hang himself. Plus, I have a really thick skin in things like that, so I didn't really think that Gold's foolish posts were much of a threat to adults. Were I faced with a LGWH, I'd be inclined to merely edit out whatever pictures he was posting, but leave his words and arguments intact. One could always cite bandwidth issues as a justification for axing the pics, since I note in OD's posting guidelines, for example, that there is a warning about overdoing posted pics. Then people could be free to disagree with him all they like, prove him wrong, take him to task, etc., as long as ideas were the focus of the discussion and not just personal attacks, and of course, he would be free to answer back. If people can't handle allowing the other side to speak, why would they even begin a discussion in the first place? In the end, people really need to step back and put things in perspective: it's an internet forum and the opinions expressed represent those of the posters only. "It's just one man's opinion," so to speak. I always laugh when people fly off the handle and demand that someone who says something they think inappropriate be silenced.

Obviously they have an agenda of their own, which also includes censorship, and does not seem entirely compatible with OD's agenda, althoug it may not be obvious when the overall traffic level there is low (i.e. only the true believers posting).

Could be. Back when the Polinco forum was humming along in the beginning, before the posting slump, it seemed to me most of the things I read at Polinco could easily be read here at OD--and there was a significant overlap in the membership signed up both there and here. I meant to say this earlier--that whatever differences there are between the two forums, they strike me as miniscule and non-essential. Perhaps they seem magnified just because there is so much commonality--the small things become major markers of delineation. I believe the phrase for it is "the narcissism of minor differences."

jay

2002-10-21 20:29 | User Profile

Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Oct 21 2002, 11:35 we can add that incident to the list of theories as to why Polinco remains an underused resource--this sort of discussion about why the fire might have gone out..

                Come on, PCA, just say it: the posters over there are assholes.  Sometimes, it&#39;s better not to mince words.  It&#39;s not about censorship, religion or control.  They are assholes and people don&#39;t like hanging around assholes.

I'd like to know your thoughts on that Vlad character. What a dork. I think I responded to that clown one time before I realized he couldn't type a logical thought.

-J

PaleoconAvatar

2002-10-21 20:52 | User Profile

**Come on, PCA, just say it: the posters over there are assholes. Sometimes, it's better not to mince words. It's not about censorship, religion or control. They are assholes and people don't like hanging around assholes.

I'd like to know your thoughts on that Vlad character. What a dork. I think I responded to that clown one time before I realized he couldn't type a logical thought.**

:lol: It would be unprofessional for me to refer to posters by that term. Plus, that designation is in the eye of the beholder. I'm betting there are people who think that about me.

There's a lot of eccentric characters out there, especially in non-mainstream politics. Such people sometimes have a tendency to be abrasive, aggressive, and so on, but then again, people have different sensitivity and pain levels. I just don't take things personally. I am cognizant that others may have different limits and tolerance levels.

There are posters in lots of places that make me wonder what kinds of drugs they're on. No need for me to cite specific names and places; people don't care what my preferences are anyway, nor should they. If I discover that a certain poster is unreliable [read: nuts], I simply skip over that person's post when I'm reading down the thread and notice their screen name. It's not like I'm forced to read or think about or respond to material that requires ten years of clinical experience to decipher. ;)

jay

2002-10-21 21:03 | User Profile

I just happen to think that if someone dislikes my post, they can avoid attacks. A lot of those guys couldn't stop making it personal....so I just concluded they were angry people. The admin on that board yelled at me on one thread b/c he had not received a payment from me to help the board operate.

Needless to say I left shortly thereafter.

-J

PaleoconAvatar

2002-10-21 21:20 | User Profile

I just happen to think that if someone dislikes my post, they can avoid attacks.

A reasonable and mature principle.

Mercuria

2002-10-22 01:30 | User Profile

Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Oct 18 2002, 19:57 A link to a discussion at Polinco about paleoconservatism, which also mentions the OD Forum, is located here: [url=http://www.polinco.com/forum/showthread.php?s=3a549c16d667323b94bd3280f2173cb5&postid=4921#post4921]http://www.polinco.com/forum/showthread.ph...d=4921#post4921[/url]

Well, thank goodness it's not provocative or anything...hehehe.

With all due respect, the last time I checked here, this board was not about trying to "recruit" anyone, yet I have seen discussions on Polinco and on this very thread about utilizing OD as a "recruitment" tool for a specific, narrow viewpoint of paleo-conservatism.

If Polinco the board is complaining about OD not conforming to their idea of paleo-conservatism (which seems to focus primarily on racialism, Jewish control of America, and "Xian blindness" to these issues), then maybe they'd better think of a way to attract those likeminded "acceptable" visionaries (and most of the time, they're no better than the FR Bushbot hordes when it comes to swarming and flaming dissenters) and live with the idea that not everyone views paleo-conservatism's power to be in its ideas of racial or European-heritage superiority...rather than using and then trashing other people's "inferior minded" boards to garner membership that for some reason (ahem) it cannot garner for itself.

Texas Dissident gives loads of leeway to people here to express themselves...okay, so maybe some can't get away with using slurs here as much as they'd like, but it isn't for lack of trying, now, is it? I see people actually ignoring his guidelines, and he's had more patience than I would have had.

Could be why more people are over here than at Polinco? Heaven knows from what I've experienced of the management from there, I'd sure be in no hurry to use my valuable time to break the doors down to engage in "dialog" that, in fact, rarely if ever even exists over there.

DISCLAIMER: This is not a blanket indictment of all members of Polinco, some names whom I recognize and respect as mature and thoughtful posters, even when I disagree with them.

Mercuria

2002-10-22 01:46 | User Profile

Originally posted by il ragno@Oct 18 2002, 20:39 **If they're not manfully holding their hands over open flames, judging the rest of us and finding us woefully wanting in bloodlust and fanaticism, they're blinking back tears wondering why they're only averaging 1.2 posts a day.

Nahh - there couldn't be any connection.**

I know that those who are fighting for their visions can't always take a page out of How To Make Friends And Influence People, but they sure as hell shouldn't be taking a page from How To Alienate People You Wish To Join Your Movement.

Ranting at objections to racial slurs and overgeneralizing as "wussing out" doesn't elicit my sympathy for them. I laugh at it. Because I doubt many of those people would ever have the nerve to say a quarter of the stuff they say to someone's face. If they fear retribution for being "honest", maybe they're going after the wrong "wusses", eh?

Mercuria

2002-10-22 01:51 | User Profile

Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Oct 18 2002, 21:04 Polinco does have some interesting features, ones that excited me when the project was first launched. The forum sections devoted to the Jim Giles campaign as well as the Pro-White Mass Political Platform section--moderated by FAEM's Maguire, are two interesting and useful aspects.

"Pro-White Mass Political Platform" forum?

Interesting. Kind of leaves out those who are not white yet accept the tenants of paleo-conservatism, doesn't it?

Might be just me, but I'm of a mind that one of the goals of paleo-conservatism is to attempt to negate the idea that certain sets of Americans should have more access to freedoms and "perqs" than others.

If I saw "Pro-Black Mass Political Platform" on a board, I'd think I'd run into the Jesse Jackson crowd...and you'll have to excuse me if I don't want to be identified with any type of race-preference shenanigans he espouses and adopts...and I doubt I'm the only white paleo-con who thinks this way.

Mercuria

2002-10-22 01:54 | User Profile

Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Oct 18 2002, 22:04 I understand your larger point, but in fairness, I'd be surprised to see that particular word you suggested above being posted at Polinco. Stormfront, almost certainly, but not Polinco.

                Then I must read Polinco more than you...I&#39;ve seen the word on several occasions.

Mercuria

2002-10-22 01:59 | User Profile

Originally posted by Leveller@Oct 20 2002, 07:26 Tex, maybe because so many SFOF'ers ended up here rather than there. I'm just speculating - I haven't looked at Polinco for a long time - but when SFOF was closing down, OD and Polinco were where most people seemed to be heading. I myself thought Polinco would be 'SFOF continued', but it didn't quite happen, so now I lurk here. ;)

Yeah...and they got very hostile over at Polinco when some poor well-meaning unsuspecting member actually suggested SFOF members could meet over here. They've had their eye on OD ever since...hehehe. (Well, it's their website, their money...they can use it as they please!)

Mercuria

2002-10-22 02:03 | User Profile

Originally posted by Campion Moore Boru@Oct 20 2002, 14:55 **The only censoring I've ever witnessed here is when The Linderous one, in his inimitable manner, barged onto the board like some caricature of J. Streicher. **

I must say...considering that the WN consider Alex one of their "fair-haired boys", that was one of the most inauspicious debuts on a site I've ever seen. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but I expected better. (And his followers trolling this board with their "outrage" didn't help my opinion of him or them, FWIW...)

Mercuria

2002-10-22 02:22 | User Profile

Originally posted by Frederick William I@Oct 21 2002, 09:28 ** I'm not a close follower of Polinco, but I suspect what you say in general about is mostly if not all true. But the Latina Gal's White Husband (LGWH) incident did leave a rather indelible impression on me and a lot of the rest of us about Polinco, in large part because it was Jenifer and the other Polinco people that orchestrated the whole thing (getting LGWH kicked off, for posting the anti-abortion pictures). There was a great deal of discussion over the whole thing, at it seemed that the pro-Polinco people were the ones following it more closely and have a more detailed description of the incident, which curiously, for the usually very open SFOF, was pulled and is no longer accessible. In fact all of LGWH's posts and threads were pulled, i.e. he was "nuked" in Free Republic parlance.**

I had posted a thread called "SamFRancis.net?" which was the debate thread (if you can call it that) for the LGWH banning. I took issue with it. Other posters were more interested in taking personal potshots while lamely justifying LGWH's ban as "righteous" whereas their own bannings were "censorship".

In any case, nothing was resolved, I determined that SF.net was definitely not an improvement over FR on discussing anything - especially not the operation of the board, and definitely not dissenting views about abortion. (Turns out a lot of WNs are more pro-abort than one would expect - they scream for removal of "disgusting pictures" much like the NOW Gang does.) I have the thread saved on my hard drive. I could've sworn the FR Guilders had grown "batches" and joined SFOF.

**The whole episode really seemed a message that there were strict limits to the amount of fundamentalist Christian sermonizing and other deviations from WN orthodoxy, (i.e. LGWH's misogony of sorts) that the Polinco types would tolerate. I think that all their whining about our "censorship" has to be interpreted in light of their own well lack of tolerance. Jenifer basically said if SFOF didn't kick LGWH off all the Dutch Polinco people would leave.

Obviously they have an agenda of their own, which also includes censorship, and does not seem entirely compatible with OD's agenda, although it may not be obvious when the overall traffic level there is low (i.e. only the true believers posting).**

True enough. I saw Jennifer's gloating over the letter she sent to the Board Admin over at SFOF. And FWIW...the "disgusting" pix LGWH were sourced from another site, so complaining about "bandwidth" issues was a total crock.

Although Patricia Ireland would be soooo proud of Jennifer for asserting her "strength" via loud-mouthed vaporings about being "offended" by pictures of the aborted babies her gang tries to present as irrelevent. Odd that a woman who took such great pains to be an utterly offensive baggage to all who disagreed with her on SFOF would suddenly have her feewings hurt.

Or maybe not so odd. She acts exactly like the control freaks on FR, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Ragnar

2002-10-22 02:22 | User Profile

Originally posted by Mercuria@Oct 22 2002, 01:30 Could be why more people are over here than at Polinco?

                They have turnover there, don&#39;t forget.  The originals like Vlad are gone, folks like Euroman post intermittently, and right now it&#39;s wide open for new posters.  My guess it will change lots more after the elections because at the moment some of the heavy poster are busy elsewhere with that (Eg: Tsun.)

mwdallas

2002-10-22 02:42 | User Profile

**"Pro-White Mass Political Platform" forum?

Interesting. Kind of leaves out those who are not white yet accept the tenants of paleo-conservatism, doesn't it?

Might be just me, but I'm of a mind that one of the goals of paleo-conservatism is to attempt to negate the idea that certain sets of Americans should have more access to freedoms and "perqs" than others. **

The achievement of paleoconservative goals presupposes the continued existence of the white race. There's no need to exclude non-whites who subscribe to paleoconservative principles, but it would be political foolish to ignore the community of interests between paleoconservatives and non-paleo whites.

Mercuria

2002-10-22 02:50 | User Profile

Originally posted by Ragnar@Oct 21 2002, 19:22 They have turnover there, don't forget. The originals like Vlad are gone, folks like Euroman post intermittently, and right now it's wide open for new posters. My guess it will change lots more after the elections because at the moment some of the heavy poster are busy elsewhere with that (Eg: Tsun.)

Perhaps, but instead of expending their energies pummeling another website that they scorn, they should work on projecting positive reasons why people should join their site? (Unless there isn't any? P.S ... coming up with reasons why America is more f*ed up than "liberal" European nations isn't exactly going to elicit warm fuzzies from any nationalists who love our country...unless Polinco is more about White Internationalism than, say, nationalism of any sort? Hard to tell sometimes.)

Ragnar

2002-10-22 03:08 | User Profile

Originally posted by Mercuria@Oct 22 2002, 02:50 Perhaps, but instead of expending their energies pummeling another website that they scorn...

                That&#39;s what I mean&#33;  There&#39;s no "they".  You and two of your friends could take the place over right now&#33;

Mercuria

2002-10-22 03:14 | User Profile

Originally posted by mwdallas@Oct 21 2002, 19:42 The achievement of paleoconservative goals presupposes the continued existence of the white race.

Well, I happen to be one of those annoying "Xians" who believes what the Bible says about ethnos rising up against ethnos...and seeing as there's no clear winner indicated, there seems to be no Godly admonition in favor of a race war, or any indication that any race "wins" this battle.

It's all part of the Hook In The Jaw...which racialists and ethnocentrists of every color and background are getting wedged in their chins. Right now. Just as God said would happen...and again, without designating a "winner".

There's no need to exclude non-whites who subscribe to paleoconservative principles, but it would be political foolish to ignore the community of interests between paleoconservatives and non-paleo whites.

Non-paleo whites aren't more inclined to be "talked over" to the paleo side simply because of their skin color...unless you intend to use racial division as a "unifier" of whites against Them...in which case your paleo movement becomes no better than Jesse Jackson's Monochrone/SHOVE Coalition, and the results will not be what you expect.

You either focus on the principles of paleo-conservatism and how they benefit all Americans, or you use it to promote a racial conflict and one-upsmanship that will produce no winners...at least not in principle.

If paleo-conservatism is not about equal application of the law for all American citizens, then it becomes just the White Shadow Of Political Correctness.

I've seen some severe reprimands against pro-Zionist Christians here - accusations that they are using their religious beliefs as justification for accelerating what they believe to be the advent of the Tribulation (while ignoring the point of their beliefs that state many Jews will die during this Tribulation).

For what reasons of faith are segments of the WN movement attempting to accelerate the ethnos vs. ethnos portion of Biblical prophecy? If it's because they "don't believe in that Biblical stuff", what is the source of their faith that states unless they strive to place their race above others that their race will be "wiped out"?

I happen to go in for the tinfoil hat theories from time to time, but I haven't seen a conspiracy theory or source for this one that holds any water...and no-one seems very compelled in getting too much into revealing the source of this belief. Certainly what I've seen as "justification" to date is far more risible than they feel Christianity's "no respecter of persons" viewpoint to be.

Mercuria

2002-10-22 03:17 | User Profile

Originally posted by Ragnar@Oct 21 2002, 20:08 That's what I mean! There's no "they". You and two of your friends could take the place over right now!

I've never made it a secret that I envy no message board's chief the task of running a site like that...or this...or Free Republic. (You're not gonna trap me like that...LOL!!!!)

PaleoconAvatar

2002-10-22 04:00 | User Profile

With all due respect, the last time I checked here, this board was not about trying to "recruit" anyone, yet I have seen discussions on Polinco and on this very thread about utilizing OD as a "recruitment" tool for a specific, narrow viewpoint of paleo-conservatism.

I donÃ¢â¬â¢t know if anyoneÃ¢â¬â¢s used the term Ã¢â¬Årecruitment,Ã¢â¬Â but Texas Dissident did mention on another thread that the influx of readers as a result of ODÃ¢â¬â¢s exposure on VNN through the Linder thread presented a certain opportunity. He stated in [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=12&t=3838]Original Dissent's Alexa Ratings: 10/19/02[/url],

The fringe benefit being, of course, the possiblity that many may come to our pages and be converted from the dark hole of strict racialism to republican, constitutional, anti-federalist conservatism.

So I imagine that this sentiment indicates that politically-oriented forums are generally used as a base for persuasive communication as well as the exchange and testing of ideas.

**Might be just me, but I'm of a mind that one of the goals of paleo-conservatism is to attempt to negate the idea that certain sets of Americans should have more access to freedoms and "perqs" than others.

If I saw "Pro-Black Mass Political Platform" on a board, I'd think I'd run into the Jesse Jackson crowd...and you'll have to excuse me if I don't want to be identified with any type of race-preference shenanigans he espouses and adopts...and I doubt I'm the only white paleo-con who thinks this way.**

Your perspective on this issue makes sense in an abstract Western context, given the tendency of Western Civilization toward individualism and certain standards of Ã¢â¬Åfairness,Ã¢â¬Â but youÃ¢â¬â¢d have to agree that we currently live in distinctly unnatural and indeed anti-Western times. In this day and age, the methodology of Jesse Jackson rules the roost, so to speak, and for AmericaÃ¢â¬â¢s White majority to tie its hands behind its back and adopt race-neutral attitudes is akin to Ã¢â¬Åunilateral disarmament.Ã¢â¬Â Reality trumps ideals.

I made this point in response to the inane chop-job piece that neocon Jonah Goldberg penned re: Pat Buchanan. If youÃ¢â¬â¢re interested in seeing it, itÃ¢â¬â¢s located at EtherZone at [url=http://www.etherzone.com/2002/fall030702.shtml]http://www.etherzone.com/2002/fall030702.shtml[/url]

Just the other day, incidentally, Sertorius and I were discussing this on the board in this thread: [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=3682]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...t=ST&f=4&t=3682[/url] . It would seem the FReepers have the same misgivings about Ã¢â¬Åstooping to the level of Jesse JacksonÃ¢â¬ÂÃ¢â¬âwhom they often compare to David Duke.

Then I must read Polinco more than you...I've seen the word on several occasions.

This may be the case. Elsewhere on this thread I mentioned that once I get the vibe that a certain poster is Ã¢â¬Åoff-the-wall,Ã¢â¬Â I have a tendency to skip over those posts rather than wade through the muck. ItÃ¢â¬â¢s likely that a person unrefined enough to use that term in public is equally unrefined in their other posting habits, and I bet I skipped right over those several instances and never noticed them. My mistake.

P.S ... coming up with reasons why America is more fed up than "liberal" European nations isn't exactly going to elicit warm fuzzies from any nationalists who love our country...unless Polinco is more about White Internationalism than, say, nationalism of any sort? Hard to tell sometimes.)*

Pat Buchanan has arrived at an important understanding about why America is quite dead, the good one, anyway. Frankly, this country has been rendered temporarily unlovable by the machinations of the Left and friends. I quote from BuchananÃ¢â¬â¢s latest work, The Death of the West:

Ã¢â¬ÂIn half a lifetime, many Americans have seen their God dethroned, their heroes defiled, their culture polluted, their values assaulted, their country invaded, and themselves demonized as extremists and bigots for holding on to beliefs Americans have held for generations. Ã¢â¬ËTo make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely,Ã¢â¬â¢ said Burke. In too many ways America is no longer lovely....Some feel that she is no longer their country. We did not leave America, they say, she left us. As Euripides wrote, Ã¢â¬ËThere is no greater sorrow on earth, than the loss of oneÃ¢â¬â¢s native land.Ã¢â¬Â (p. 5)

I just realized that Euripides quote may be how PolincoÃ¢â¬â¢s NativeExile got his screenname. Just a thought.

Anyway, continuing Buchanan:

We are two countries, two peoples. An older America is passing away, and a new America is coming into its own. The new Americans who grew up in the 1960s and the years since did not like the old America. They thought it a bigoted, reactionary, repressive, stodgy country. So they kicked the dust from their heels and set out to build a new America, and they have succeeded. To its acolytes the cultural revolution has been a glorious revolution. But to millions, they have replaced the good country we grew up in with a cultural wasteland and a moral sewer that are not worth living in and not worth fighting forÃ¢â¬âtheir country, not ours. (p. 6)

WeÃ¢â¬â¢ve already lost America, and weÃ¢â¬â¢re now in the process of taking it back, or at least creating a new one on the last good foundations available on the old. This is paleoconservatism in its counterrevolutionary phaseÃ¢â¬âundoing everything the revolutionary Left has done. There is no America to love now, not in the status quo we live in. And thatÃ¢â¬â¢s a long, hard road.

As far as misguided tendencies toward internationalism, I am in complete agreement with you. ThereÃ¢â¬â¢s a Kammler piece over at VNN on just that point located at: [url=http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/index245.htm]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/index245.htm[/url] -- it calls for a more Ã¢â¬ÅEuro-America-centricÃ¢â¬Â nationalism, homegrown and not foreign.

madrussian

2002-10-22 04:06 | User Profile

PA,

if you browse LF, you'll immediately notice the latest line from the neocon/objectivist/randianist Bolsheviks about those "generalizing too much" being "collectivists" :rolleyes:

Robbie

2002-10-22 04:08 | User Profile

I am a former Polinco member (I even gave them pledge money to start the darn board). I left because I could no longer tolerate the attitudes of some particular posters (one of them Jay mentioned) when it came to Christians. Too many of these forums have a knee-jerk hatred for Christians, and those who belong to such forums who belong to the faith had to keep their beliefs in secret (which was basically impossible to pull off) for fear of being sh*t upon.

There's no point in discussing the religion aspect (thus, this post would go to the religion section) here, but it seemed as if White nationalist forums see everything as black and white. When I joined OD, I knew right away this was a forum that was reminiscent of SFOF. It was nice to be at a forum where I didn't feel like I had to walk on eggshells because I was a Christian, in fear of being smeared.

As for VNN, I go there every day. They can be funny and truthful, but some of it can be pathetic (references to Christianity). As if those who follow the faith don't know what's going on in our churches?? VNN has their own style, which is fine and dandy, but I prefer OD for its rationality.

I haven't logged on to Polinco in a long time, and I'm not sure if it's even worth it.

As for FAEM, all I can say is that they are cowards for what they just pulled off. Nice picture of the chick on the front, though (HaHa!!). Was everything they did "worthwhile" for five years my bum...

mwdallas

2002-10-22 04:25 | User Profile

You either focus on the principles of paleo-conservatism and how they benefit all Americans

If applied properly -- i.e., if applied only among those who accept and honor the reciprocal obligations such principles entail -- paleoconservative principles don't benefit all Americans. They benefit only productive and individualistic Americans. Those who lack productive capacities or whose ethnocentrism is at odds with the paleoconservative principles of individual rights and liberties cannot be persuaded, because paleoconservatism is not in their interest. In any event, paleoconservative principles cannot survive if paleoconservatives themselves do not survive. To survive, paleoconservatives will need to ally themselves with those whose survival is tied together with their own.

unless you intend to use racial division as a "unifier" of whites against Them...in which case your paleo movement becomes no better than Jesse Jackson's Monochrone/SHOVE Coalition

There is a major distinction: Jackson's coalition is aggressive. Your argument is like saying if you shoot the guy who's shooting at you, you're no better than he is. But that's not true. Self-defense is morally different from aggression.

What we're talking about is defensive politics. How can you have a problem with that?

PaleoconAvatar

2002-10-22 04:40 | User Profile

Originally posted by madrussian@Oct 22 2002, 00:06 **PA,

if you browse LF, you'll immediately notice the latest line from the neocon/objectivist/randianist Bolsheviks about those "generalizing too much" being "collectivists" ÃÂ :rolleyes:**

Ah, another forum has entered the mix. :D

I've browsed through LF a few times, and my account is registered there and is active under the screen name PaleoconAvatar [I try to keep consistent across cyberspace].

If anyone has a generalization problem, it's the universalist Randians and allied libertarians--paleolibertarians excepted, of course. They are too quick to assume that all human beings are equal and interchangeable, and that all are equally amenable to their libertarian dogma. At least paleolibs like Hoppe have a deeper respect for and understanding of human particularity. As far as their Holy "Non-Aggression Principle," they're just as Utopian and globalist as their Leftist counterparts. The liberal/globalist roots of libertarianism are exposed in an essay titled "The Anti-History of Free Trade Ideology" by William R. Hawkins, appearing in Joseph Scotchie's The Paleoconservatives: New Voices of the Old Right. Best I've come across on the subject, and short and interesting, too. The LFers would be well served to read it. It's available at Amazon.com. The LFers could also benefit from The Philosophy of Nationalism by Charles Josey, a text from 1923 (go figure) that's a bit harder to find, but I can privately e-mail some sources for that to interested parties.

I won't be spending much time with the LFers, just because my personal style and mental make-up suits me for working with at least nominally conservative audiences. Other people can do a better job "ministering" to the liberals and libertarians; it's harder for me to build a bridge to them. I refuse to teach them their ABCs and multiplication tables, which is where you really have to begin with those types. I don't have the time or patience, because it's a longer road to traverse with them. They're babes--because at least many "mainstream" conservatives aren't such inflexibly atomized individualists, and they accept the building blocks of the nation, the community, et al.

Who knows, though, maybe I'm being too pessimistic and harsh toward that crowd. I may be in the mood to pay a visit someday.

I have to add, I think it was Valley Forge who did a great job over there with a nationalism thread. I noticed, though, that a lot of the LFer anti-nationalists just had no clue, they were hopeless. They parroted back the standard lines they get from mainstream society, and one of them--my God--had a Martin Luther King, Jr. quote in his sig line. Libertarians who idolize MLK!? I think you can see why I'm somewhat discouraged, with my comments above. ;)

Faust

2002-10-22 06:23 | User Profile

Related thread,

The Failure of Paleo Conservatism [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=3845&s=478f5ea30b561a6ac3a4f4fc5e4e8879]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...3a4f4fc5e4e8879[/url]

Frederick William I

2002-10-22 15:26 | User Profile

Originally posted by Mercuria@Oct 22 2002, 02:22 **I had posted a thread called "SamFRancis.net?" which was the debate thread (if you can call it that) for the LGWH banning. I took issue with it. Other posters were more interested in taking personal potshots while lamely justifying LGWH's ban as "righteous" whereas their own bannings were "censorship".

You know, I've never seen the actual thread where LGWH got pulled. It would be interesting if you could give us a link to this thread, it ight be interestng for some of the newbies to see.

I'm not sure that SFOF was like FR though. Basically the SFOF just let the Polinco people take over, and ran for the exits it would seem, as that was the last time we saw or heard anything from him. It was if the shutdown and transfer to Polinco was preordained - until OD stepped in.

What happened at SFOF was a wakeup call to us I think about some of these people. You just can't give them carte blanche.

True enough. I saw Jennifer's gloating over the letter she sent to the Board Admin over at SFOF. And FWIW...the "disgusting" pix LGWH were sourced from another site, so complaining about "bandwidth" issues was a total crock. **

I'd never heard that before. I guess it just shows why they wanted to get rid of LGWH so bad. He certainly seemed to have something on them. Maybe if he'd hung around longer we would have found out.

Mercuria

2002-10-23 01:46 | User Profile

Originally posted by Frederick William I@Oct 22 2002, 08:26 You know, I've never seen the actual thread where LGWH got pulled. It would be interesting if you could give us a link to this thread, it might be interestng for some of the newbies to see.

What's the point of uploading and posting links to a dead forum? Let sleeping dogs lie and let it rest in peace, if at all possible. Those on that forum know how it all came down, hopefully people learned from it. (And those who hung out there and didn't know about it weren't paying attention.)

If newbies want to learn about the Polinco forum, I think there are links to it around here. Certainly the site addy is a no-brainer, so people should be able to figure it all out. (Much like, "Uhhh, what's OD's site address?")

And they can ask Jennifer herself if they want to know the facts about the LGWH debacle. She if she held on to any of her "handiwork". She was the one to work to get LGWH kicked off the forum, not me.

I'm not sure that SFOF was like FR though. Basically the SFOF just let the Polinco people take over, and ran for the exits it would seem, as that was the last time we saw or heard anything from him. It was if the shutdown and transfer to Polinco was preordained - until OD stepped in.

Pre-ordained? Well, I don't think so. Hehehe. I don't know for sure, of course, but that sounds like a conspiracy bucket with no water, so I'll let it be. g But there was a thread over there where some poor guy - van helsing, I think - innocently proposed at Polinco that CofCC would be a good alternate meeting place when SFOF closed down...and he just got launched on for suggesting such a thing. Bad form on the part of Polinco management, that...what, a Jewish mother-in-law guilt trip did I see? Oy!

But in all seriousness, one of the concerns of Jim Robinson was the use of people from sites like Polinco trying to make FR a stumping ground for their agenda..."taking over", as it were. Perhaps his concerns for FR were valid if the same type of people were doing the same thing over at SFOF? (Provocative question, I know...care to address it?)

What happened at SFOF was a wakeup call to us I think about some of these people. You just can't give them carte blanche.

It's one thing to allow diverse viewpoints on a board, but there are those who, as groups, attempt to force their own personal ideological agendas as de rigueur...and some of those agendas are pretty extreme. (Heck, even Polinco cut bait on Alex Linder when they determined his home page to be too much for them!)

When Texas Dissident opened this board for recruitment, I rather imagined he meant to the cause of paleo-conservatism grassroots...not for extended focus and recruitment for ideological groups that would love nothing better than to paint this board with a swastika...whether they be Nazis ("See? They think just like us!") or neo-cons ("See? They think just like them!").

How many idiots who decided to get all cute with swastika avatars and darling little slurs upon initial entry were welcomed by members of this board? How many do any of us know for certain that these were actual Nazis or A.P.s?

And in the end...does it really matter? Neither the Nazis nor the neos want what's best for this board. They're more concerned about coloring paleo-conservatism with their colors - the same colors.

I'd never heard that before. I guess it just shows why they wanted to get rid of LGWH so bad. He certainly seemed to have something on them. Maybe if he'd hung around longer we would have found out.

LGWH was a pro-life, Progressive Dispensationalist anti-Zionist (how's that for a label?) who seemed to take umbrage with some of the rhetoric on SFOF. But it seems those who were most uncomfortable with his rhetoric (namely, Polinco and friends) decided that SFOF was to be their secondary "safe haven" from "disgusting pix" and "self-righteous fundy moralizing", blah blah blah.

The rest is SFOF history...which, God willing, will not be repeated here.

Mercuria

2002-10-23 02:16 | User Profile

Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Oct 21 2002, 21:00 **I donÃ¢â¬â¢t know if anyoneÃ¢â¬â¢s used the term Ã¢â¬Årecruitment,Ã¢â¬Â but Texas Dissident did mention on another thread that the influx of readers as a result of ODÃ¢â¬â¢s exposure on VNN through the Linder thread presented a certain opportunity. He stated in [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=12&t=3838]Original Dissent's Alexa Ratings: 10/19/02[/url],

The fringe benefit being, of course, the possiblity that many may come to our pages and be converted from the dark hole of strict racialism to republican, constitutional, anti-federalist conservatism. **

Yes, but note that some people have come in here with the exact opposite idea...to cast aside the other ideas mentioned by TD in order to focus primarily on - and to promote - racialism.

I get the impression that is not what TD had in mind, especially reading his guidelines. He makes it pretty clear what he expects from the posters, and I don't think he's asking too much at all...but there are some who tend to think he does ask too much and kind of overstep the bounds. So should TD stick up for his guidelines or should he not?

Your perspective on this issue makes sense in an abstract Western context, given the tendency of Western Civilization toward individualism and certain standards of Ã¢â¬Åfairness,Ã¢â¬Â but youÃ¢â¬â¢d have to agree that we currently live in distinctly unnatural and indeed anti-Western times. In this day and age, the methodology of Jesse Jackson rules the roost, so to speak, and for AmericaÃ¢â¬â¢s White majority to tie its hands behind its back and adopt race-neutral attitudes is akin to Ã¢â¬Åunilateral disarmament.Ã¢â¬Â Reality trumps ideals.

Adopting the truth that our Constitution and our nation is about justice and equal application of laws for all citizens is not "unilateral disarmament", and playing Jesse Jackson's game "wins" nothing for whites except a temporary feeling of satisfaction that they have "gotten even" with the racialists of color.

Putting our "faith of victory" in skin color and/or ethnic identity and its seniority, rather than on those intangible abstracts that seemed to work fine and dandy in the actual development of our country and its system of laws and justice, is a real temptation.

And it's one that will doom this nation to division and failure as those who decide to put their faith in the Skin God rather than laud the fortitude of the freedoms our forefathers laid out decide to appeal to the selfish, prideful, arrogant demons of our nature rather than the sublime truths that are of greater import than skin color or ethnic culture.

If we promote a racial/ethnic war to assert authority and superiority, we become no better than the tribalists of Africa...in fact, we are even worse, because in our civilized, enlightened culture, aren't we supposed to know better?

But like I said, it doesn't surprise me too much. God said this would happen, and it's happening. Just increases my faith. I'm still waiting for a serious faith source from any racialist or promoter of "paying the multicultural warriors back in kind" that somehow encouraging this division will work. Because as far as I can tell, it hasn't, it doesn't, and it won't.

(I'll read the other links you sent me re: Buchanan, et c. ... I've probably babbled enough on this post, and I want to make sure I read those links thoroughly. Thanks!)

Mercuria

2002-10-23 02:22 | User Profile

Originally posted by Robbie@Oct 21 2002, 21:08 *I am a former Polinco member (I even gave them pledge money to start the darn board). I left because I could no longer tolerate the attitudes of some particular posters (one of them Jay mentioned) when it came to Christians. Too many of these forums have a knee-jerk hatred for Christians, and those who belong to such forums who belong to the faith had to keep their beliefs in secret (which was basically impossible to pull off) for fear of being sht upon. **

No point, then, in going on there.

Are they any less heinous than, say, Zionist groups that accept Christians to their causes...as long as they don't talk about "That J.C. Guy"? And then God-or-Odin help you if you do...!

NeoNietzsche

2002-10-23 02:57 | User Profile

Originally posted by Mercuria@Oct 22 2002, 20:16 **Adopting the truth that our Constitution and our nation is about justice and equal application of laws for all citizens is not "unilateral disarmament", and playing Jesse Jackson's game "wins" nothing for whites except a temporary feeling of satisfaction that they have "gotten even" with the racialists of color.

"...the truth that our Constitution and our nation is about justice and equal application of laws for all citizens..." is an unrealizable aspiration, whatever the sincerity thereof - hence our present predicament and the requirement for other inspiration.

"...those intangible abstracts that seemed to work fine and dandy in the actual development of our country and its system of laws and justice..." did not work fine and dandy - hence our present predicament and the requirement for other inspiration.

"...sublime truths that are of greater import than skin color or ethnic culture..." are illusory, lacking in substance, merely rhetorical - hence our present predicament and the requirement for other inspiration.

"If we promote a racial/ethnic war to assert authority and superiority, we become no better than the tribalists of Africa...in fact, we are even worse, because in our civilized, enlightened culture, aren't we supposed to know better?"

We are supposed to win and thus survive - that is to be "better" in the real world outside the church, the parlor, and the ivory tower.

Faust

2002-10-23 03:46 | User Profile

NeoNietzsche,

Remember before 1865 when the Constitution was illegally changed only Europeans could become citizens. Remeber the case of Mr. Scott?

Sporon

2002-10-23 04:12 | User Profile

Faust, the constitution was the ground upon which the legalists moved. What kind of nation is it that is based simply on a set of laws? A nation not bonded together by ancestry and culture is not a nation. This is an immutable fact unaffected by any constitution. The constitution should be denounced as an idol which destroys its worshippers.

Mercuria, Why not give out citizenship to animals? If you say that animals are not intelligent but humans are, then I will present you with stupid humans. What if space aliens suddenly announce themselves? They might be a lot smarter than humans. Would you like to give them citizenship? Don't they have the right to life, liberty and and whatever else is on the menu? Heck, space aliens might be far more efficient workers. Maybe they should be allowed to supplant humanity entirely on this basis alone. What do you think of that?

Mercuria

2002-10-23 04:15 | User Profile

Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Oct 22 2002, 19:57 > Originally posted by Mercuria@Oct 22 2002, 20:16 Adopting the truth that our Constitution and our nation is about justice and equal application of laws for all citizens is not "unilateral disarmament", and playing Jesse Jackson's game "wins" nothing for whites except a temporary feeling of satisfaction that they have "gotten even" with the racialists of color.

We are supposed to win and thus survive - that is to be "better" in the real world outside the church, the parlor, and the ivory tower.**

If the "inspiration" is "let's encourage a race war", please reveal the source of faith and inspiration you have that convinces you that this is a successful way to make a better nation and a germane reason to trash the Constitution and the vision of our forefathers. (It's a toughie, I've yet to see one source ever produced by those who try to make the case for "other inspirations" that sounded logical. I trust God above anyone else, and He points out the futility of it, the futility of which is visibly evident today. Who's your source? I'm curious.)

I doubt whether the arguments for an All White Worldly Earthly Paradise some envision is less "idealistic" or "unrealistic" than the arguments of the Founding Fathers that transcend such frippery as skin color and ethnic background.

We have a unique culture. Take a look at the race and ethnic wars in Europe and elsewhere in the world. I'd hardly say they were "successful", and if success means subjugating law-abiding individuals and robbing them of freedoms or taking entitlements for our race when we have scorned others doing it in order to make a certain race or ethnicity "empowered" over others...well, then, this is no longer America, but indeed a corrupted European culture that has rarely gotten its sh** straight when it came to freedoms.

As for me, I'm still willing to fight for such freedoms here. Talk about ivory towers if you please, but some of us are actually out in the streets stating what we believe about our country's freedom and sovereignty, and we're not afraid to speak up off of a message board.

I'd like to know if any racialists here or elsewhere who believe so highly in their message that they've actually taken it out of the church, the parlor, the ivory tower...or even off-line to the general populace that surrounds them physically? Or are they content to be mouse warriors building White Cloud Cuckooland, seeing as their faith in their philosophy doesn't extend beyond the secure walls they've built for themselves on-line? They shouldn't be afraid if they believe themselves to be as right as they think they are.

The "ivory tower" set seems better defined as the dreamers who prophesy America The Pure White Fantasyland by playing a childish but fiendish "game". Never mind that old, stodgy document about individual liberties and such that a bunch of dead white guys cooked up two hundred years ago, or the God (or even sublime ideals, if not God) that inspired them. Better to play the Jesse Jackson Game for Our Survival.

If one truly believes that, then one has no real room to criticize Jesse Jackson for playing that "game" for his people's survival, or the Aztlanistas and their "games". If we are willing to state The Game is more important to America than the Constitution...then we've become nothing like America should be.

And if people think that somehow the trend of multiculturalism is going to be turned towards favoring whites and giving them power in America with rhetoric as lousy as Jesse Jackson's, they'd better think again about whom they label as "idealists".

Because they are the ones who are really dreaming, IMHO.

Okiereddust

2002-10-23 04:21 | User Profile

Originally posted by Sporon@Oct 23 2002, 04:12 If you say that animals are not intelligent but humans are, then I will present you with stupid humans. What if space aliens suddenly announce themselves? They might be a lot smarter than humans. Would you like to give them citizenship?

What about those that are mixtures in part stupid humans and in part space alien? You seem unusually obsessed with these two categories - do you feel a personal stake in our answer.

(P.S. I will consider giving you citizenship, but only if you tell me what planet you're from :P )

Okiereddust

2002-10-23 04:23 | User Profile

Originally posted by Sporon@Oct 23 2002, 04:12 If you say that animals are not intelligent but humans are, then I will present you with stupid humans. What if space aliens suddenly announce themselves? They might be a lot smarter than humans. Would you like to give them citizenship?

What about those that are mixtures in part stupid humans and in part space alien? You seem unusually obsessed with these two categories - do you feel a personal stake in our answer?

(P.S. I will consider giving you citizenship, but only if you tell me what planet you're from. Are you Klingon or Cardacian? :unsure: )

Mercuria

2002-10-23 04:28 | User Profile

Originally posted by Sporon@Oct 22 2002, 21:12 **Why not give out citizenship to animals? If you say that animals are not intelligent but humans are, then I will present you with stupid humans. **

I haven't the slightest idea what this has to do with anything I've said. What kind of analogy is that? Do I sense disingenuousness here? Have I pinched you or something?

And I'm not much of an "idolator" when it comes to a piece of paper...if it states undeniable sublime truths, I support it.

So far, I've seen no credible source that states possessing a certain skin color or a certain ethnic background creates a sublime, overriding truth that certain races are overall superior to others to the extent where basic Constitutional and civil rights should be taken away from others to boost and grace the Self-Chosen Ones (if you'll forgive the expression). Sounds a hell of a lot more like "idolatry" than respecting and adhering to the tenets presented by the wise men who founded this nation!

So do tell me...what is your source of faith and inspiration in your ideals? Where do you derive your beliefs? I showed you mine. Now you show me yours! g

amundsen

2002-10-23 05:21 | User Profile

Originally posted by Sporon@Oct 22 2002, 23:12 the constitution was the ground upon which the legalists moved. What kind of nation is it that is based simply on a set of laws? A nation not bonded together by ancestry and culture is not a nation. This is an immutable fact unaffected by any constitution. The constitution should be denounced as an idol which destroys its worshippers.

There is no American melting pot nation. The melting pot America is only a state. Cultural, and racial ties are what make a nation. A nation will defend itself. Likewise a state will defend itself. But what the state is defending is the government, the law as it exists at the time, not the race and culture of its people. We have witnessed this with America. We have defended the state. We have protected it, but most often at the expense of our nation. We have fought to protect the state at the cost of our culture.

I agree that the constitution is a dangerous thing. It gives hope to people that somehow, someday everyone will wake up and start following it by the letter. But what made the constitution matter was not the words on the document, but the nature of the people living under it. They would not be subjected to that which we allow ourselves to endure. They would accept minor deviations without much trouble, the same as we do, and in the same way that both accept deviations in our culture. This is how we have slowly slid to the point we are at today. The change in the general character of the people, which is what makes a culture, has declined parallel to the growth of the state.

The key to our future is not in getting a document recognized. The key to our future is not in returning our legal system to a strict interpretation of our constitution. The key is in reforming the character of our people so that they are fit for freedom. When we are fit for freedom we will accept nothing less. We will do what it takes to secure freedom. When we are as we are today, immoral, rootless, and free (not from government but from bonds to our fellow man), then we are fit for nothing but subjugation.

NeoNietzsche

2002-10-23 05:33 | User Profile

Originally posted by Mercuria@Oct 22 2002, 22:15 If the "inspiration" is "let's encourage a race war", please reveal the source of faith and inspiration you have that convinces you that this is a successful way to make a better nation and a germane reason to trash the Constitution and the vision of our forefathers. ÃÂ (It's a toughie, I've yet to see one source ever produced by those who try to make the case for "other inspirations" that sounded logical. ÃÂ I trust God above anyone else, and He points out the futility of it, the futility of which is visibly evident today. ÃÂ Who's your source? ÃÂ I'm curious.)

We have a unique culture. ÃÂ Take a look at the race and ethnic wars in Europe and elsewhere in the world. ÃÂ I'd hardly say they were "successful", and if success means subjugating law-abiding individuals and robbing them of freedoms or taking entitlements for our race when we have scorned others doing it in order to make a certain race or ethnicity "empowered" over others...well, then, this is no longer America, but indeed a corrupted European culture that has rarely gotten its sh** straight when it came to freedoms.

As for me, I'm still willing to fight for such freedoms here. ÃÂ Talk about ivory towers if you please, but some of us are actually out in the streets stating what we believe about our country's freedom and sovereignty, and we're not afraid to speak up off of a message board.

I'd like to know if any racialists here or elsewhere who believe so highly in their message that they've actually taken it out of the church, the parlor, the ivory tower...or even off-line to the general populace that surrounds them physically? ÃÂ Or are they content to be mouse warriors building White Cloud Cuckooland, seeing as their faith in their philosophy doesn't extend beyond the secure walls they've built for themselves on-line? ÃÂ They shouldn't be afraid if they believe themselves to be as right as they think they are.

The "ivory tower" set seems better defined as the dreamers who prophesy America The Pure White Fantasyland by playing a childish but fiendish "game". ÃÂ Never mind that old, stodgy document about individual liberties and such that a bunch of dead white guys cooked up two hundred years ago, or the God (or even sublime ideals, if not God) that inspired them. ÃÂ Better to play the Jesse Jackson Game for Our Survival.

If one truly believes that, then one has no real room to criticize Jesse Jackson for playing that "game" for his people's survival, or the Aztlanistas and their "games". ÃÂ If we are willing to state The Game is more important to America than the Constitution...then we've become nothing like America should be.

Because they are the ones who are really dreaming, IMHO.**

Taking your questions and points in order:

*I do not claim prospective success for Whites in encouraging a race war - I make the obvious point that the war is upon them and is not to be avoided by pretending to be a non-combatant under the various delusional pretexts to which you adhere. I find the past example of Hitler and the Third Reich "inspirational" - but realize now that this was the last stand of the White Man in terms of significant resistance.

*To the extent that the "arguments of the Founding Fathers" were truly transcendent/universalistic, the federal government was founded on fatuities now serving as pretexts for our dispossession.

*Our culture is "unique" in its peerless combination of naivete and self-righteousness. It has the arrogance of the merely fortunate who mistake the latter for the measure of their virtue. The racist Germans and Japanese were well on the way to subduing Asia and thus guaranteeing their own futures - and indirectly America's - when the ignorant and stupid American goyim were stampeded by their own sneaking dictator into hideously trampling these superior and more provident peoples.

*Speaking of "some of us are actually out in the streets" - it is to laugh at the danger involved in publicly advocating "Constitutionalism" or some such variation on the theme of equal justice for all. Have you tried handing out Nazi literature in full Stormtrooper uniform in the midst of a majority-minority major metropolitan area, as some others of us have done? I have the credentials from every venue that entitle one to talk about ivory towers.

*Yes, the Game is for survival, and the Blacks and the Jews are to be commended, rather than criticized, for taking stock of the reality and acting thereupon. "America [as it] should be" is the true "cloud Cuckooland" which will have to be discarded if Americans are not to suffer the fate of the stupid Dodo bird, renowned for its incapacity in recognizing enemies in the act.

PaleoconAvatar

2002-10-23 06:13 | User Profile

Mercuria,

Your numerous posts on this thread referring to the vision of our Founding Fathers and rights guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution (via God) overlook an essential point: the Founding Fathers were the very "racialists" you now seek to condemn.

The Constitution of the United States, as originally written by the Founding Fathers, did not grant citizenship to Blacks or even "rights" of any kind. In fact, the laws and customs of this land reflected the fact that this is a White Man's country--with emphasis on both "White" and "Man's"--from the time of the founding well until the twentieth century. Indeed, full "equality" and all that business really hadn't come about until the 1960s.

This is inescapable. Those who are today called "White Nationalists" reflect the values and principles of the vast majority of generations of Americans that lived before the "revolution" wrought by liberalism and egalitarianism in this country. White Nationalists are not the "radicals," nor are they the ones who seek to break from American tradition. The shoe is precisely on the other foot. It's the "colorblind individualist" types on the pseudo-Right as well as the Leftie Jackson-multiculturalist types who are today the dangerous radicals busily erecting dreamworld utopias.

The worst I can be accused of is seeking to "turn back the clock" and "repealing the twentieth century." I plead guilty to these thoughtcrimes.

The only counterargument I've encountered thus far in response to my claims above tends to be variations on the idea that "racism" is something our ancestors indulged in because they were "ignorant" or "products of their times," or the like. One should stop to think, though, that the same assessment can be made of the people who make these charges of "time-boundedness," since "colorblindness" and "egalitarianism" are the two acceptable "mainstream" positions one is allowed to take in these modern days.

Instead of pointing out areas in which they think our ancestors were ignorant, these colorblind or egalitarian accusers should be asking what our ancestors knew that these compassionate and sensitive moderns do not. Perhaps our ancestors were "racists" for good reason. The modern American hypnotized by liberalism assumes he (or dare I say she) is in the right, and that all the previous generations were wrong. Talk about arrogance and narrow provincialism!

These same observations could be made about another burning issue of the day--foreign policy. Neoconservatives who favor overseas intervention claim that America cannot follow the advice of the Founding Fathers about 18th century geopolitics in the 21st century, because the "circumstances are different." The neocon position, when you boil it down, is the liberal, environment-uber-alles position. The Founders' views were not based on the configuration of power across the nation-states in the international system of the 18th century. They're based on human nature, which remains fixed and unchanging over time.

Hence, mention of the word "enlightenment" in one of your posts is revealing as well, since that also stems from a liberal philosophical conception of the nature of man. There was, is, and can be, no enlightenment and no unidirectional historical progress toward some Utopia. What you've seen in history--those "nasty" ethnic conflicts and such--that's what you've always had, and it's what you'll continue to get, forever. And America is not a magical place exempt from this reality. Anyway, the true reason our forefathers believed in "isolationism" is that they understood military adventurism would distort and damage our republican form of government. Here at home, it contributes to the expansion of executive power, and earns us enemies abroad that we otherwise might not have had.

The Founding Fathers have proven correct, as usual.

Mercuria

2002-10-23 06:24 | User Profile

Originally posted by amundsen@Oct 22 2002, 22:21 The key to our future is not in getting a document recognized. The key to our future is not in returning our legal system to a strict interpretation of our constitution. The key is in reforming the character of our people so that they are fit for freedom.

I'd sure love to hear some proposals that'll work.

The type that compel people of their own free will to reform their characters.

Otherwise, you may have a form of theocracy on your hands...and we all know what that turns into in the hands of imperfect men. So far, I think the Constitution is probably the best document outlining Godly freedoms without treading on people's liberty to worship as they please.

Mercuria

2002-10-23 07:00 | User Profile

Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Oct 22 2002, 22:33 **Taking your questions and points in order:

I do not claim prospective success for Whites in encouraging a race war - I make the obvious point that the war is upon them and is not to be avoided by pretending to be a non-combatant under the various delusional pretexts to which you adhere. I find the past example of Hitler and the Third Reich "inspirational" - but realize now that this was the last stand of the White Man in terms of significant resistance.*

Thanks, but I'm quite aware of the racial conflicts going on, and am not as "delusional" as you may think. There will be no "winners" in such a war, but of course, it's your choice if you want to play War Games on the 'net. As it is, it's the Constitution and freedoms that the misery merchants are aiming at...not your lily-white behind specifically. Not yet. But they'll have all the freedom in the world to do it once we get un-Constitutional "hate crime" laws passed. They will never be passed in your favor.

How to you choose to deal with that?

BTW, you state nothing about how one becomes the "combatant" for the white race, as you seem to suggest. What have you done lately to alert people in your immediate area to the necessities of enacting racial favoritism and control for whites? I mean, besides dressing up as a stormtrooper in order to harry as many people as possible? (Sorry, but the stormtrooper outfit was a really bad idea...naughty us and our pre-conceived notion of stormtroopers, eh? Not everyone who's written about the war are Zionist shills, I hope you realize.)

Frankly, I prefer my own choice of inspiration over yours. Hitler claimed NS would only work in Germany, but he sure was into getting his hot little hands in territories that didn't belong to him. And last I checked, paleo-conservatism was about non-interventionism. So I see no parallel there between Hitler and paleo-conservatism...as much as racialists and neo-cons would like to make it in Adolf's image.

Hitler and his National Socialist idea, as well as the concepts of some WN spokespeople, is pretty near kin to radical Zionism. Radical Zionism for goys. Not in this country, thanks.

*To the extent that the "arguments of the Founding Fathers" were truly transcendent/universalistic, the federal government was founded on fatuities now serving as pretexts for our dispossession.

Where, exactly? There's lots of documents out there, you know. g

*Our culture is "unique" in its peerless combination of naivete and self-righteousness. It has the arrogance of the merely fortunate who mistake the latter for the measure of their virtue. The racist Germans and Japanese were well on the way to subduing Asia and thus guaranteeing their own futures - and indirectly America's - when the ignorant and stupid American goyim were stampeded by their own sneaking dictator into hideously trampling these superior and more provident peoples.

I disagree. Our culture is unique in that it affords opportunities in freedom not made available to other nations. We've had our stumbling blocks, sure, but if you really think the "culture" of Europe is to be admired, take a look at the crap-heap governments their "culture" has led them to adopt.

As for self-righteousness...our meddling in other people's affairs is unsettling, especially when they do not involve us (to put it mildly). But I can't think of anything more "self-righteous" than someone thinking their skin color or ethnic background makes them "superior". As if they had a damned thing to do with their own heritage and skin color. It's cozy enough, I reckon, to accept other people's accomplishments as one's own without having to contribute a lick oneself. "He's white, he's European, it's my culture...so I am in some way responsible."

Would such who think this way willing to accept the utter shame of a Bill Clinton, an FDR, a Sarah Brady as their very own while they're taking bows for Mozart, Shakespeare, or white Western philosophers? I don't think so.

*Speaking of "some of us are actually out in the streets" - it is to laugh at the danger involved in publicly advocating "Constitutionalism" or some such variation on the theme of equal justice for all. Have you tried handing out Nazi literature in full Stormtrooper uniform in the midst of a majority-minority major metropolitan area, as some others of us have done? I have the credentials from every venue that entitle one to talk about ivory towers.

No, I have not...because I do not support the concepts of Nazi literature, stormtroopers, et al. A silly question.

But I have gone toe-to-toe with enough people who were howling for the blood of me and my companions because of pro-gun and immigration control issues. So I do have some experience, as do others you may consider to be of an inferior race who have the guts to stand up to threatening scum who are looking to invade our country or take away our rights. I have nothing but respect for those people.

*Yes, the Game is for survival, and the Blacks and the Jews are to be commended, rather than criticized, for taking stock of the reality and acting thereupon. "America [as it] should be" is the true "cloud Cuckooland" which will have to be discarded if Americans are not to suffer the fate of the stupid Dodo bird, renowned for its incapacity in recognizing enemies in the act.

To paraphrase...that all depends on what your definition of "enemy" is.

Obviously we see different enemies.

Mercuria

2002-10-23 07:15 | User Profile

Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Oct 22 2002, 23:13 Mercuria...

Did a snip job...people can read your entire post without me reposting it.

I agree with your concepts re: interventionism. No problem!

But despite the racialism possessed by the Founding Fathers (I don't deny it), nothing they put in the Bill Of Rights stood to deprive women, minorities, or anyone else from citizen rights from Then To Time Everlasting. In other words...their racialist viewpoints were not reflected in documents clearly designed to give insight as to how laws were to be enacted.

What could the reason for that be? If they were as intensely racialist as you would like to make out in order to justify your viewpoint, wouldn't you see this as a rather jarring error? Would a real racialist make such an oversight? If so, why?

Why the deliberate vagueness as to whom gets granted God-given rights?

Maybe they had insight into something you didn't, but they're dead now, and we can't ask them. But suffice it to say this isn't the first time I've encountered folks who want to "improve" on the Constitution to have it mean what they believe the Founding Fathers felt, rather than what was written. But usually, those folks claim to be on the left side of the fence...and they're usually the same folks who, when talking about the Bible or the Constitution, arrogantly claim that "you can read into it anything you want" so they don't have to deal with the face-value of what was put across.

In any case, it's been a long day, I've posted more on here than I've posted in a long time, and I'm just plumb tuckered out! Thanks for the energetic conversation, all. Catch you later!

amundsen

2002-10-23 12:43 | User Profile

Originally posted by Mercuria@Oct 23 2002, 01:24 Otherwise, you may have a form of theocracy on your hands...and we all know what that turns into in the hands of imperfect men. So far, I think the Constitution is probably the best document outlining Godly freedoms without treading on people's liberty to worship as they please.

                All governments are likely to turn bad as all are run by imperfect men.  The Constitution is a fine document, but not sufficient to make good people, capable of freedom.

I do not think that we need a theocracy to turn us back. But I dont see anyway back in democracy. The vote must be taken away from most in order to restore freedom. If we only let white males vote then this country would be more like the country most conservative people claim to want. That would be an improvement. Of course everyone in those groups would complain and resist. But I dont see how the civic right of voting could be more important than the outcome people claim to want. So I would think that people who truly want a conseravative state would be willing to give up their vote if it would give them their goal.

It was white males who gave us a free country, and it will be they who give us back freedom. Still, the white males of today are a rather sorry lot, and could use a bit of moral reformation. After all, it is the weakness of white males that has allowed us to get to the point we are at. So the solution as far as I see it is reforming white males. They have to become men again.

amundsen

2002-10-23 12:52 | User Profile

Originally posted by Mercuria@Oct 23 2002, 02:00 I disagree. Our culture is unique in that it affords opportunities in freedom not made available to other nations. We've had our stumbling blocks, sure, but if you really think the "culture" of Europe is to be admired, take a look at the crap-heap governments their "culture" has led them to adopt.

                Our culture used to afford freedom.  But, while the state still does allow many freedoms it is our culture that prohibits them.  Our oppression comes not so much from the state but from the culture.  I can say that I dont think negros are equal to whites, but what price would our culture assert for saying that?  If I said it at work I could be fired, if I say it at church they might boot me out, if I say it to people at a party and they might want to have nothing to do with me.  Now I could say that I think sodomy is the highest form of human love, and all of those groups would likely not bat an eye.

It is our culture which imposes restrictions on ideas, and thoughts. To be sure, there has always been some cost to speaking your mind. But it is higher than ever today and what they define as acceptable is in opposition to every tradition of the American people, and Christianity. And those traditions are what gave us the freedom we talk about. It is the freedom of liberalism that allows people to be free from work, free from responsibilty, free from true concern for our fellow man. That is why I say that our problem is much deeper than our Constitution.

NeoNietzsche

2002-10-23 14:12 | User Profile

Originally posted by Mercuria@Oct 23 2002, 01:00 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Oct 22 2002, 22:33 Taking your questions and points in order:

I do not claim prospective success for Whites in encouraging a race war - I make the obvious point that the war is upon them and is not to be avoided by pretending to be a non-combatant under the various delusional pretexts to which you adhere. ÃÂ I find the past example of Hitler and the Third Reich "inspirational" - but realize now that this was the last stand of the White Man in terms of significant resistance.*

How to you choose to deal with that?

Hitler and his National Socialist idea, as well as the concepts of some WN spokespeople, is pretty near kin to radical Zionism. Radical Zionism for goys. Not in this country, thanks.

*To the extent that the "arguments of the Founding Fathers" were truly transcendent/universalistic, the federal government was founded on fatuities now serving as pretexts for our dispossession.

Where, exactly? There's lots of documents out there, you know. g

*Our culture is "unique" in its peerless combination of naivete and self-righteousness. ÃÂ It has the arrogance of the merely fortunate who mistake the latter for the measure of their virtue. ÃÂ The racist Germans and Japanese were well on the way to subduing Asia and thus guaranteeing their own futures - and indirectly America's - when the ignorant and stupid American goyim were stampeded by their own sneaking dictator into hideously trampling these superior and more provident peoples.

*Speaking of "some of us are actually out in the streets" - it is to laugh at the danger involved in publicly advocating "Constitutionalism" or some such variation on the theme of equal justice for all. ÃÂ Have you tried handing out Nazi literature in full Stormtrooper uniform in the midst of a majority-minority major metropolitan area, as some others of us have done? ÃÂ I have the credentials from every venue that entitle one to talk about ivory towers.

No, I have not...because I do not support the concepts of Nazi literature, stormtroopers, et al. A silly question.

*Yes, the Game is for survival, and the Blacks and the Jews are to be commended, rather than criticized, for taking stock of the reality and acting thereupon. ÃÂ "America [as it] should be" is the true "cloud Cuckooland" which will have to be discarded if Americans are not to suffer the fate of the stupid Dodo bird, renowned for its incapacity in recognizing ÃÂ enemies in the act.

To paraphrase...that all depends on what your definition of "enemy" is.

Obviously we see different enemies.**

"As it is, it's the Constitution and freedoms that the misery merchants are aiming at...not your lily-white behind specifically. Not yet. But they'll have all the freedom in the world to do it once we get un-Constitutional 'hate crime' laws passed. They will never be passed in your favor."

Again your delusion that the law and Constitution effectively stand in the way of the enemy, when the only obstacle to the obviation of those elements is public opinion - opinion which has yet to register the true issue.

"BTW, you state nothing about how one becomes the 'combatant' for the white race, as you seem to suggest."

One would think that the obvious need not be stated: There are no "civilians" in a race war.

"(Sorry, but the stormtrooper outfit was a really bad idea...naughty us and our pre-conceived notion of stormtroopers, eh? Not everyone who's written about the war are Zionist shills, I hope you realize.)"

One could wish to attribute the cowardice and ignorance reflected in "preconceived notions" merely to shilling for Zion.

"Hitler claimed NS would only work in Germany, but he sure was into getting his hot little hands in territories that didn't belong to him."

Who gives "title" to territory such that one speaks other than nonsense about its "belongingness." You are a trespasser and heir of aggression by your own legalistic lights, but for some lame bourgeois rationalization of your presence on this (or any other) continent.

"So I see no parallel there between Hitler and paleo-conservatism...as much as racialists and neo-cons would like to make it in Adolf's image."

We agree.

"Hitler and his National Socialist idea, as well as the concepts of some WN spokespeople, is pretty near kin to radical Zionism. Radical Zionism for goys. Not in this country, thanks."

Wouldn't want to emulate those who've been successful, now would we? We must keep our noses in the air and perish as delusional legalists, rather than resort to the means demanded by the war which we confront.

"Where [the transcendent/universalistic fatuities], exactly? There's lots of documents out there, you know. g"

Where it says all men are created equal, and where it says our rights are granted by "God."

"Our culture is unique in that it affords opportunities in freedom not made available to other nations."

Because the geographic position and resource base of this continent is unique, and because the colonial heirs of British thalassocracy were given the opportunity to exploit here the virtues of laissez-faire until the continent was fully occupied and Jewry became a pillar of state amidst the emerging disorders at the end of the 19th Century. None of this has to do with wisdom or virtue. In fact, it has produced a uniquely stupid and corrupt people in terms of political and cultural sophistication and integrity.

"But I can't think of anything more 'self-righteous' than someone thinking their skin color or ethnic background makes them 'superior'. "

We agree. The "superiority" is collective rather than individual.

"But I have gone toe-to-toe with enough people who were howling for the blood of me and my companions because of pro-gun and immigration control issues."

Then you have some sense of the Stormtrooper's experience and cannot presume that your remarks about "War Games" are properly mentioned in my presence or that of any other "racialist" not of your personal acquaintance.

"So I do have some experience, as do others you may consider to be of an inferior race who have the guts to stand up to threatening scum who are looking to invade our country or take away our rights. I have nothing but respect for those people."

Again, you presume too much, in speaking of "others [I] may consider to be of an inferior race." I honor your courage - but implore you to consider the un-wisdom of imagining that you have "rights," in the first place, other than those which you could enforce by the hands of your own people. Oh, and the "scum" are not merely "looking" - they have done it, despite the paper you hold dear which says they can't.

"Obviously we see different enemies."

Name yours, please.

Texas Dissident

2002-10-23 16:21 | User Profile

Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Oct 23 2002, 09:12 **Because the geographic position and resource base of this continent is unique, and because the colonial heirs of British thalassocracy were given the opportunity to exploit here the virtues of laissez-faire until the continent was fully occupied and Jewry became a pillar of state amidst the emerging disorders at the end of the 19th Century. None of this has to do with wisdom or virtue. In fact, it has produced a uniquely stupid and corrupt people in terms of political and cultural sophistication and integrity.

Again, you presume too much, in speaking of "others [I] may consider to be of an inferior race." I honor your courage - but implore you to consider the un-wisdom of imagining that you have "rights," in the first place, other than those which you could enforce by the hands of your own people. Oh, and, the "scum" are not merely "looking" - they have done it, despite the paper you hold dear which says they can't.

Intriguing, NN. Thank you.

PaleoconAvatar

2002-10-23 18:40 | User Profile

**But despite the racialism possessed by the Founding Fathers (I don't deny it), nothing they put in the Bill Of Rights stood to deprive women, minorities, or anyone else from citizen rights from Then To Time Everlasting. In other words...their racialist viewpoints were not reflected in documents clearly designed to give insight as to how laws were to be enacted.

What could the reason for that be? If they were as intensely racialist as you would like to make out in order to justify your viewpoint, wouldn't you see this as a rather jarring error? Would a real racialist make such an oversight? If so, why?**

I think I see what might be going on here, now that youÃ¢â¬â¢ve restricted your remarks to the Bill of Rights. At an American Renaissance conference, Sam Francis once remarked that non-whites need not be denied their Ã¢â¬ÅBlackstonian civil rightsÃ¢â¬ÂÃ¢â¬âmeaning that they should not be denied their own life or property. But he did make it clear that they were not entitled to any sort of political or social rights, meaning that they cannot participate in the political life of the country, such as voting, serving on juries, and the like, nor would they have social Ã¢â¬ÅrightsÃ¢â¬Â such as the ability to marry Whites and commit miscegenation. And even at that, Whites were prohibited by law from committing miscegenation, sodomy, and abortion. I agree with FrancisÃ¢â¬â¢ assessment. In the 19th century, the minority groups you mention were tiny and irrelevant, and had no political power or presence whatsoever.

Now, you use the word Ã¢â¬ÅcitizenÃ¢â¬Â above, and that touches on what IÃ¢â¬â¢m getting at here. For all intents and purposes, non-whites could not be citizens. They were aliens, and while they had Blackstonian rights like the kind I listed aboveÃ¢â¬âsuch as the right not to be assaulted or robbedÃ¢â¬âthey couldnÃ¢â¬â¢t do much else in society in terms of decisionmaking, etc.

As for the reason the Constitution does not specify and enumerate the racial laws that the United States long had, the reason for this is that the Constitution is a document that restricts the power of the Federal government, and lays out the political architecture. Most power is reserved to the States, and it is at the state level that one finds most of these laws written and carried out. The State Constitution of Connecticut, even, stated, Ã¢â¬ÅEvery white male citizen of the United States, who shall have gained a settlement in this State, attained the age of twenty-one years,...shall on his taking such oath as may be prescribed by law, be an elector.Ã¢â¬Â This provision was ratified in 1818 and repeated again in October, 1845.

HereÃ¢â¬â¢s an example of what I mean, using a non-racial issue. A provision for Ã¢â¬Åfully-informed juries,Ã¢â¬Â where jurors have the right to judge the law as well as the facts in a case, is not explicitly in the Constitution. Yet, the right was an ancient one, and the Founding Fathers well knew of it and approved of it, it was part of the fabric of the society. Over time, however, for various reasons, this aspect of the right of juries was forgotten, and now conservative activists are working to educate people to this lost aspect. I suppose that this loss could have been prevented had the Founding Fathers taken the time to list every single element, but then the Constitution would be the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Incidentally, if you're interested in learning more about the rights of the jury that have been obscured over the years, you can check out the website of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) at [url=http://www.fija.org]http://www.fija.org[/url] -- you may have already heard of it, though.

So, you see, the Constitution is a basic document. It makes provisions for how immigration and naturalization laws shall be passed. And the Founding Fathers passed the first Immigration Act in 1790, which restricted citizenship to Ã¢â¬Åfree White persons only.Ã¢â¬Â Apparently, they believed that giving Whites this exclusive, racial preference did not violate the Constitution that theyÃ¢â¬â¢d just written. Subsequent generations excluded Asians by law from immigrating and becoming naturalized in 1882, if I recall correctly. Much healthier times, those.

Nor did state laws enforcing racial segregation offend the Constitution. It took until 1954 for a liberal Supreme Court to suddenly "discover" that the "separate but equal " doctrine violated even the 14th Amendment in Brown v. Board of Education. It was a similar court that "discovered" the "right to privacy" that made abortion legal in the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case. My goal is simply to reverse the supposed "gains" liberalism has made over the years.

But suffice it to say this isn't the first time I've encountered folks who want to "improve" on the Constitution to have it mean what they believe the Founding Fathers felt, rather than what was written. But usually, those folks claim to be on the left side of the fence...and they're usually the same folks who, when talking about the Bible or the Constitution, arrogantly claim that "you can read into it anything you want" so they don't have to deal with the face-value of what was put across.

I have no desire to Ã¢â¬Åimprove uponÃ¢â¬Â or add anything to the Constitution. All I ask is that it be returned to its original condition, and this is best accomplished by deleting Amendments 14-26. Then things will be back to the way they once wereÃ¢â¬âweÃ¢â¬â¢d be a Republic again, no more income tax, no more direct election of U.S. SenatorsÃ¢â¬âthe state legislatures will again appoint them, as they did before 1913, and citizenship and voting rights and the like will again rest only with White males aged 21 and older. Now, note that I didnÃ¢â¬â¢t say delete the 13th Amendment: although itÃ¢â¬â¢s a post-Civil War amendment, it could be useful as a tool for opposing a military draft. Besides, the 13th will protect us from any further temptation to import obsolete farm equipmentÃ¢â¬âweÃ¢â¬â¢ve seen the dangers and chaos that temptation visits upon us. ;) And the 27th Amendment was originally proposed 200 years ago and only ratified finally in 1992, if I recall, and it helps restore a citizen legislature, so I have no quarrel with #Ã¢â¬â¢s 13 and 27.

p.s. Excellent questions you raise here, by the wayÃ¢â¬âones that make sense to ask and to find answers to. Welcome back to the board, too, Mercuria, I hadnÃ¢â¬â¢t seen your screen name here for a while.

PaleoconAvatar

2002-10-24 02:31 | User Profile

Therefore, while we can agree that some form of Blackstonian rights are due to all, I am reluctant to grant full "property rights" because "property rights" technically include ownership of media/academic outlets and thereby manipulation of the public sector (it worth noting that prior to their "emancipation," European Jewry still exerted much influence over European courts and parliaments through their role as stock traders, bankers, etc).

Excellent point.

Faust

2002-10-27 23:31 | User Profile

PaleoconAvatar,

Great Posts. I did love the old Sam Francis Forum, I was the top poster and one of the first members, I think had over 5000 posts. Texas Dissident is right the Polinco members do seem to "have such a bee in their bonnet." I like many of the Polinco members but do wish they could avoid attacking Paleocons and Christians.

PaleoconAvatar

2002-10-28 00:47 | User Profile

I think had over 5000 posts

You're well on your way to having that many posts here. :lol: