← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · NeoNietzsche

Thread 3147

Thread ID: 3147 | Posts: 55 | Started: 2002-10-19

NeoNietzsche [OP]

2002-10-19 21:32 | User Profile

"In practical terms this disposition means that paleocons present themselves as upholders of some bygone but preferable ethos which they betray by accepting the core propositions of modernity such as cultural diffusion and the supremacy of individualism whilst futilely hoping to reject the inevitable anti-culture that arises from said propositions. By accepting the notion of societal commonality being founded upon constitutionalism, adherence to a universalistic religious ethos (Christian or secular) and consensual propositions (economic or legal) rather than common ancestry and a definite historical legacy which defines national aspirations and preferences (i.e. Traditionalism) contemporary paleo-conservatism is rendered impotent. What now passes for paleo-conservatism is an amorphous idea given shape by an isolated snapshot of history and the vestigial institutions left behind by a near-apparition mistaken for a viable society. Raspail likened the situation of modern Occidentals to Hermit Crabs inhabiting the bounty of an ancestry we neither build upon, preserve, appreciate or recognize because we choose to identify with the mechanisms (ex. institutions) and the benefits (ex. prosperity and individualism) of our ancestral inheritance rather than the force that gave birth to those things (i.e., expressions of Occidental genius and sacrifice) and the discipline that is needed to preserve our existence. Paleocons, mainstream libertarians and classical liberals do so because to do otherwise would entail [the] risk [of] offending the rulers of the institutions they hope to be co-opted by. This position is taken so as to maintain the belief, in contrast to the evidence, that fundamental change and the suffering it brings can be avoided as can the consequences of endless societal indulgence by merely tuning the legal code, withering the state, praying more fervently or assimilating the alien to our ways as we fade to an anthropological curiosity.

"What currently is seen as paleo-conservatism is a biological and ideological dead end. A genuine conservatism is needed that is not wedded to institutionalism, legal antiquity or nostalgia, but that which provides Occidental man with the means to safeguard his physical existence via recognition that one's identity and well-being is possible only when individual, sectoral/class and national privileges and responsibilities are balanced in deference to tradition. Such a balance is need between the individual and society as well as society and the state. The form such a balance takes must be neither rootless cosmopolitanism nor the arbitrary excess inherent in autocracy and totalitarianism."

[One smiles at the resolute trampling of the Paleocon position, only to see erected another palisade rendered likewise insubstantial for refusal to countenance "autocracy."]

Faust

2002-10-21 13:25 | User Profile

On a related note:

[url=http://www.polinco.com/forum/showthread.php?s=3a549c16d667323b94bd3280f2173cb5&postid=4921#post4921]http://www.polinco.com/forum/showthread.ph...d=4921#post4921[/url]

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

Feric Jaggar

2002-10-21 18:06 | User Profile

Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Oct 19 2002, 16:32 "...we choose to identify with the mechanisms (ex. institutions) and the benefits (ex. prosperity and individualism) of our ancestral inheritance rather than the force that gave birth to those things (i.e., expressions of Occidental genius and sacrifice) and the discipline that is needed to preserve our existence. "

                I don&#39;t see paleoconservatism as being at odds with former SF Trisks statement as presented.  I think his dichotomy is false.  He says, "By accepting the notion of societal commonality being founded upon constitutionalism, adherence to a universalistic religious ethos (Christian or secular) and consensual propositions (economic or legal) rather than common ancestry and a definite historical legacy which defines national aspirations and preferences (i.e. Traditionalism) contemporary paleo-conservatism is rendered impotent."  His statement loses credibility with me at the word "rather".  The PaleoConservatism I&#39;m familiar with adheres to constitutionalism and consensual propositions AS WELL as common ancestry and a definite historical legacy.  I agree that Paleos do not do well enough to put voice to the second half of this equation but that does not mean it is not a part of paleoconservatism.  For it most certainly is.  Why does Trisk think paleos like Buchanan stand against nonwhite immigration...because its unconstitutional?  Sorry, I don&#39;t buy it.

Texas Dissident

2002-10-21 18:20 | User Profile

Good point, FJ.

By accepting the notion of societal commonality being founded upon constitutionalism, adherence to a universalistic religious ethos (Christian or secular) and consensual propositions (economic or legal)...

To me, this is much more characteristic of neo-conservatism, not traditional or paleo-conservatism.

Feric Jaggar

2002-10-21 20:48 | User Profile

Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Oct 21 2002, 13:20 ** To me, this is much more characteristic of neo-conservatism, not traditional or paleo-conservatism.**

                Thank you Tex.  The point being made (and I&#39;m not entirely opposed to it) was that paleoconservatism was a fine ethos when whites were 90+% of the population and not in any fear of decline, but that it does not serve as an emergency-survival mode of governmental thought when whites are fast on the decline and civilization is in peril.  I&#39;m not entirely convinced that this is true, though again, I&#39;m not 100% opposed to the line of argument either.  This is the type of argument that divides groups like VNN from groups like American Renaissance and as long as the discussion remains civil I think its a healthy one.

Frederick William I

2002-10-22 03:55 | User Profile

I don't know. This short essay seems to have an awful lot of rather arbitrary distinctions.

Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Oct 19 2002, 21:32 **1. a. By accepting the notion of societal commonality being founded upon constitutionalism, adherence to a universalistic religious ethos (Christian or secular) and consensual propositions (economic or legal)

rather than

b. common ancestry and a definite historical legacy which defines national aspirations and preferences (i.e. Traditionalism)

a. we choose to identify with the mechanisms (ex. institutions) and the benefits (ex. prosperity and individualism) of our ancestral inheritance

rather than

b. the force that gave birth to those things (i.e., expressions of Occidental genius and sacrifice) and the discipline that is needed to preserve our existence.

3.a. A genuine conservatism is needed that is not wedded to institutionalism, legal antiquity or nostalgia,

but (is wedded to)

b. that which provides Occidental man with the means to safeguard his physical existence via recognition that one's identity and well-being is possible only when individual, sectoral/class and national privileges and responsibilities are balanced in deference to tradition

Such a balance is need between the individual and society as well as society and the state. The form such a balance takes must be neither rootless cosmopolitanism nor the arbitrary excess inherent in autocracy and totalitarianism."

How does one distinguish between 1a. and 1b. since 1a came from 1b? 2. How does one venerate the genius that created these things, if one does not venerate or at least appreciate the things themselves (institutions and prosperity).

Then we get into all sorts of balances

when individual, sectoral/class and national privileges and responsibilities are balanced in deference to tradition
Such a balance is need between the individual and society as well as society and the state. The form such a balance takes must be neither rootless cosmopolitanism nor the arbitrary excess inherent in autocracy and totalitarianism."

I'm afraid Triskelon is not a master of clarity. That's a starting point

Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Oct 19 2002, 21:32 [One smiles at the resolute trampling of the Paleocon position, only to see erected another palisade rendered likewise insubstantial for refusal to countenance "autocracy."]

Resolute trampling my foot. Actually his foot. It seems like the entire essay consists of one paleo like foot stepping on the other. The effect is not one of a vicuous trampling, but of a clumsy dancer, trying to pass onesself off as Nureyev or Baryshnikov.

Crystal clear logic and great prose it is not. Maybe the same criticism might be made of Triskelon as was made of Spengler and Nietszche.

"They should have sung"

Rhyme it and put with music, and at least people might enjoy hearing it, even if I doubt they'd be any clearer of what it meant. Of course, that might be considered a good criticism of paleo writing in general.

PaleoconAvatar

2002-10-22 04:11 | User Profile

How does one venerate the genius that created these things, if one does not venerate or at least appreciate the things themselves (institutions and prosperity).

Well, economists often like to put their assumptions in the context of a world characterized by scarcity, so maybe in the case of the question above we should contextualize it in a world characterized by a mix of competition, change, decline, death, and loss. Here's what I mean by this: the products of the genius--the institutions and the like--situated as they are in the "real world," are buffeted and eroded by all kinds of threats and forces. Only a certain proportion of these challenges are knowable and predictable, so eventually the creations succumb--they are necessarily transient. The original source, the creator, however, remains in place to build again. Which would you rather have: the healthy and productive fruit tree or just a one-time bushel of fruit?

Frederick William I

2002-10-22 04:49 | User Profile

Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Oct 22 2002, 04:11 **Only a certain proportion of these challenges are knowable and predictable, so eventually the creations succumb--they are necessarily transient. The original source, the creator, however, remains in place to build again. Which would you rather have: the healthy and productive fruit tree or just a one-time bushel of fruit? **

This sounds vaguely related to another famous philosophical question - which would you rather have, the chicken or the egg?

Triskelon in his original post criticized us for too much philosophizing and not enough concentrating on what is to be done. I'm afraid we've got a ways to go :D

PaleoconAvatar

2002-10-22 04:57 | User Profile

Originally posted by Frederick William I@Oct 22 2002, 00:49 > Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Oct 22 2002, 04:11 Only a certain proportion of these challenges are knowable and predictable, so eventually the creations succumb--they are necessarily transient. The original source, the creator, however, remains in place to build again. Which would you rather have: the healthy and productive fruit tree or just a one-time bushel of fruit? **

This sounds vaguely related to another famous philosophical question - which would you rather have, the chicken or the egg?

Triskelon in his original post criticized us for too much philosophizing and not enough concentrating on what is to be done. I'm afraid we've got a ways to go :D**

                Okay, you caught me indulging. But who knows, maybe such philosophizing can yield tangible real-world benefits, if only the motivation and encouragement that comes from new-found clarity and understanding. Of course, I&#39;m biased in these matters.

Faust

2002-10-22 06:11 | User Profile

I agree,

"The PaleoConservatism I'm familiar with adheres to constitutionalism and consensual propositions AS WELL as common ancestry and a definite historical legacy. I agree that Paleos do not do well enough to put voice to the second half of this equation but that does not mean it is not a part of paleoconservatism. For it most certainly is."

On a related note:

"The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow" [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=11&t=3508&s=478f5ea30b561a6ac3a4f4fc5e4e8879]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...3a4f4fc5e4e8879[/url]

Christianity: Pro or Con [url=http://www.amren.com/xtian.htm]http://www.amren.com/xtian.htm[/url]

So-Called "White Supremacy" Defined [url=http://www.melvig.org/whitesum.html]http://www.melvig.org/whitesum.html[/url]

The Decline of National Review [url=http://www.amren.com/natlreview.htm]http://www.amren.com/natlreview.htm[/url]

"End of Paleoconservatism" Affair [url=http://www.amren.com/paleoend.htm]http://www.amren.com/paleoend.htm[/url]

Texas Dissident

2003-05-08 18:03 | User Profile

Originally posted by Feric Jaggar@Oct 21 2002, 13:06 ** The PaleoConservatism I'm familiar with adheres to constitutionalism and consensual propositions AS WELL as common ancestry and a definite historical legacy. **

Perhaps this is the heart of what we are trying to hammer out. Now that triskelion is on board, maybe he can help clarify some of the questions raised here on this topic. I quoted Feric's comments as they are the ones I generally agree with.

triskelion

2003-05-08 20:35 | User Profile

Hello all, I see this very old thread has finally been raised again. It seems that for now my response is simply to say that the old comments posted here were answered by my further comments in the "failure" thread to some degree but a more complete understanding will be found at a Polinco thread called "Response to My Critics at O.D." Those posts should be read in order to understand my position. My most relevant responses in the "failure" thread to the re-posted replies seen here here will follow this paragraph. If after reading those posts and rebuttals below additional ambiguities remain with respect to my positions I will be happy to attempt to provide clarification. Responses from the failure thread:

A Reply To F.W. Hello FW, as always I am thankful for your commentary. I should state that as I never visit O.D. anymore I am unaware of what they have to say with regard to this thread but I will when time permits. Do to other commitments I have fallen way behind on this thread so it will take some time to catch up. With hindsight it is apparent, to me, that I should have titled this thread the "Failure of Mainstream American Paleo Conservatism" because it should have been stated more clearly that honorable, sound thinking chaps like FW and a few of the fellows from the old SF forum should not be tarred with the same brush as the cowardly neo confederate style paleocons. I intend to address the substantive comments made individually. Based upon your comments in this thread I will respond briefly.

F.W. quotes the original post: "1. a. By accepting the notion of societal commonality being founded upon constitutionalism, adherence to a universalistic religious ethos (Christian or secular) and consensual propositions (economic or legal)

rather than

b. common ancestry and a definite historical legacy which defines national aspirations and preferences (i.e. Traditionalism)" and then asks "How does one distinguish between 1a. and 1b. since 1a came from 1b?"

Reply: My point is that they should not make such a distinction but do so by under emphasizing or outright ignoring the reality that 1a gives rise to 1b and that the later is not meaningful given the advanced state of the former's dispossession. Paleocons, with few exceptions such as yourself, avoid racialism and never fundamentally object to multi racialism pretending that institutions or religion form the basis of what is worth defending. The on going obsession with constitutionalism is a good example of focusing upon the vestiges of an aspect of Occidental Traditionalism rather then the societal conditions that made it meritorious in the past. Such nostalgia sans Organicism gives rise to supposed defenders of the Occident such as neo-confederate groups condemning "racism" while defending their antagonists when they condemn " right wing extremists", supposedly traditional Catholics renouncing the Marquis de la Tour Du Pin and the Maurassian movement, Asatru adherents refusing to condemn cosmopolitanism, the presumption that economic libertarianism can be separated from the crass materialism it genders and the globalism that logically arises from it and Buchanan choosing a neo Marxist Congoid as a running and defending multi racialism as the underpinning of the Second World War on Crossfire.

FW continues to say: "Then we get into all sorts of balances

when individual, sectoral/class and national privileges and responsibilities are balanced in deference to tradition
Such a balance is need between the individual and society as well as society and the state. The form such a balance takes must be neither rootless cosmopolitanism nor the arbitrary excess inherent in autocracy and totalitarianism."

Reply: Yes indeed the matter of balance is very important and it is a pity that modern American paleocons don't really consider the matters mentioned above. Instead they prefer to hope that some "golden age" small town Americana can be reclaimed along with constitutionalism and the mores of the 50s via a combination of the mysticism of "invisible hand economics", a reduction in immigration which will soon be politically impossible and hoping against reason that the Christian civic mindedness of their grandfathers will somehow rise up from a cultural cesspool they pretend lacks a biologic base. Worse still is that they refuse to not only to condemn the lie of assimilation but will actually mimic those that hate the civilization they claim to defend with ritualistic condemnations of "nazis" (i.e. someone fundamentally opposed to multi racialism and openly Eurocentric).

As to the balance you raise one can look to Chesterton, Belloc, Friar D. Fahey, Grubiak, Arthur Penty, Charles Mauras, Robert Steuckers, Derrick Hearne which I feel are most relevant the current situation while recognizing that numerous variants of corporatism ( excluding the excessive statism of DeMann's Planism) may also have relevance irregardless of my reservations. The important thing is not to confuse a form of government, economic school, historical epoch or societal balance as these things have one function and that is the preservation of Occidental societies (in your case within the American context) and the race that have created them. The best means for achieving the balance you refer to is dependant upon the nature and extent of societal decline which I maintain is best understood within the context of Pareto's theory of societal decay. I maintain that it is arbitrary and counter productive to solely address the matter of the destruction of the Occident in America (or else where) in terms of: legalistic matters (ex. Constitutionalism), technics (ex. electioneering within the confines of establishment defined respectability) or the mysticism of assimilation or the renewal of Christian traditionalism (however it's defined) . Mainstream paleocons have accepted such nonsensical boundaries because they maintain an ideology based upon a hazy, emotional based nostalgia that places prime importance upon officially sanctioned respectability which they never receive.

FW says: "Actually it is rather striking reading your words here, because they are the exact same words and points used in my Suba essay on my signature (I just added it over here) - that conservatism is a defeated force in todays society. Much of what you say is undoubtedly true. Not many conservatives seem to recognize the real import of what he says and its implications, i.e. Suba's solution and its paradoxes. "

Reply: I regret to say that I am not familiar with your writings on the point at hand. I also freely confess that my poor understanding of literature has left me entirely ignorant of this Suba chap you mention. Please refer me to a source for both as my ignorance in this matter is rather embarrassing.

FW says: "Conservatives aren't big on analysis in general. That is possibly why we paleo's tend to stay with the same forms that have served us in the past. However that may be part of the conservative mentality and disposition that makes us conservative in the first place."

Reply: I regret to say that what you say is true by enlarge which is why have so little hope for mainstream paleocons. The obsession with forms is every bit as much the undoing of mainstream paleocons as it is with the sad collection of Hitlerian fetish based cliques one sees so much of the states. The nobility and value of a people stem not from a "golden age", a legal theory, adherence to some supra-rational belief system, a form of governance, material prosperity or other reflections of progress but from the inborn ability to create those things and have them serve biologic preservation and advancement. The shape that such forms take should, can and must be formed in accordance with the challenges faced by our kin rather then slavish sentimentality to some product of a healthier era.

FW: "Quite possibly conservatism will actually never regain or gain power in America (whether it actually ever really held power as such anyway is not really strongly established)."

Reply: One element of Evola's thought that has real value that paleocons should seriously consider is the notion that human existence is characterized by an endless struggle between Modernity/decay and Permanence/Tradition and as such the question is one of balance as long as the creative force of Tradition (which I view as biologic) continues to exist. Doing so should provide one with the "tools" to analysis degeneration at a fundamental level rather then the state of the forms produced by Tradition. FW: "Perhaps its power lies, not in its independent clout, but as a moderating influence on other political movements, having some characteristics in common with paleoconservatism, but which are basically distinct ideologies. Some of these other ideologies include liberalism, white nationalism, religious pietism, and anti-bellum reactionaryism." Reply: I do not see the schools you mentioned as distinct ideologies when presented in unadulterated and idealistic formation free from concessions to fadism. Rather they are mere aspects of genuine conservatism that lend themselves to the struggle for Occidental preservation, restoration or advancement depending upon the status of our decline seen from the perspective of Pareto's theory of degeneration.

FW: "I don't know to be honest. Maybe traditionalism may survive in the same way as Latin survives as a language - not as a living linguistic system in active use, but as a reference point through which one studies the past." Reply: Mere vestiges of tradition are meaningless if the people that created them cease to exist or are reduced to meager anthropological curiosities. Our existence as a people is a prerequisite to our restoration. Anyone that ignores this reality is not serving genuine Traditionalism except perhaps in a tactical sense.

The question to my mind is what form best serves Traditionalism within the current context. The answer I feel lies in a Revolutionary Conservatism which manifests itself in a folkish state based principally upon distributalist /Guild Socialism conceptions combined with a limited Republicanism along the lines advocated by Catholic Corporatism.

In the end, neutering racialism to the point that AmRen and mainstream paleocons have is as much a road to nowhere as the "88 crowd". This has been as witnessed by the fact that America has produced only two viable populist movements with pitiable election results ( Strom Thurman in Ã¢â¬Ë48 & Wallace's efforts in the Ã¢â¬Ë60s) in legislative terms. Simply partially avoiding the wraith of the self chosen while pointing out racial double standards couched in individualistic, Christian and constitutional terms has been a miserable failure. I suggest that hearing your thoughts on adopting the lessons of Europa proper to our kinfolk in the states is a worth while endeavor in both terms of activism and ideology.

Franco

2003-05-08 20:40 | User Profile

The romantic images and ideas of paleoconism [the Constitution, laws based on the Constitution, the Bible/social foundations based on it, a Minuteman statue in the town square, a flag floating on the breeze, and the rest of the package] were great in 1955.

Today, a negress federal judge who doesn't know or give a crap about what the Constitution says makes decisions about Joe Whiteguy, whose ancestors built America from scratch. Sick. If you think paleos are gonna cure that sickness, guess again. The train done left the station, that boat done sailed. Paleo ideas merely slow down our deaths, they will not prevent our deaths.

In other words, the times, and the rules, have changed. The Bill of Rights, and indeed the whole paleo enchilada, means nothing if Jews and spabooks don't follow it. And they don't.

This may be a too-often-repeated sentiment from me, but it nails the issue, I think.

Frederick William I

2003-05-10 18:27 | User Profile

Originally posted by triskelion@May 8 2003, 20:35 Hello all, I see this very old thread has finally been raised again. It seems that for now my response is simply to say that the old comments posted here were answered by my further comments in the "failure" thread to some degree but a more complete understanding will be found at a Polinco thread called "Response to My Critics at O.D." Those posts should be read in order to understand my position. My most relevant responses in the "failure" thread to the re-posted replies seen here here will follow this paragraph. If after reading those posts and rebuttals below additional ambiguities remain with respect to my positions I will be happy to attempt to provide clarification.

You know, I am having trouble finding that failure thread, or for that matter much of anything else, over at Polinco. It seems an awful lot of stuff is gone. Do you think you could provide a link to that thread?

**Responses from the failure thread:

F.W. quotes the original post:

**"1. a. By accepting the notion of societal commonality being founded upon constitutionalism, adherence to a universalistic religious ethos (Christian or secular) and consensual propositions (economic or legal)

rather than

You cover a lot of ground here, and obviously you are aquainted with quite a bit of material conservatives need to know better.

FW continues to say: > "Then we get into all sorts of balances

when individual, sectoral/class and national privileges and responsibilities are balanced in deference to tradition
Such a balance is need between the individual and society as well as society and the state. The form such a balance takes must be neither rootless cosmopolitanism nor the arbitrary excess inherent in autocracy and totalitarianism." **

I would just point out to you that your criticisms of mainstream paleoconservatism in this regard aren't unlike what Sam Francis says from time to time. He has questioned "the veneration of constitutional idols" and like you fiercely attacked Buchanan for his 2000 running mate among other things. Sometimes it seems you lump him in with the other paleoconservatives such as academicians around Fleming et.al.

As to the balance you raise one can look to Chesterton, Belloc, Friar D. Fahey, Grubiak, Arthur Penty, Charles Mauras, Robert Steuckers, Derrick Hearne which I feel are most relevant the current situation while recognizing that numerous variants of corporatism ( excluding the excessive statism of DeMann's Planism) may also have relevance irregardless of my reservations.

Just as an aside, how many Nazi's would contenance a look to people like this, "Pareto's theory of societal decay"(which I recognize from my acquaintance with James Burnham) or the something similar ? Not many I know of. The Nazi's most paleo's know are the one's who sit at the back of the room while they speaking screaming "name the Jew, name the Jew". Maybe this feeling accounts for some of these "ritualistic condemnations of 'nazis' " although again you do have to distinguish here among paleos here.

FW says: > "Actually it is rather striking reading your words here, because they are the exact same words and points used in my Suba essay on my signature (I just added it over here) - that conservatism is a defeated force in todays society. Much of what you say is undoubtedly true. Not many conservatives seem to recognize the real import of what he says and its implications, i.e. Suba's solution and its paradoxes. " **

I was referring to the article "Revolutionary Conservatism" - What's That? which was also/is my signature over at Polinco. I say "was" because I can no longer find any of my posts over there.

( A lot of interesting discussion follows. We did cover some interesting ground here, I'll say that :D. I'd almost forgotten this thread.)

**________

Well your ideas are interesting, and American paleoconservatives, the few of us there are, certainly could learn some things from the European New Right and others. I am not personally acquainted with thinkers such as Pareto, Michels, and Georges Sorel, which James Burnham commented on in The Machiavellians, and which seem to have influenced Sam Francis (re: the comment the more traditionalist Suba makes about "The Machiavellian Heresy")

It strikes me in general though that it is difficult enough to keep track of our own ideas and movement(s), much less what goes on overseas. While it might be interesting to study the lessons of the ENR, it would seem the viable political alternatives in practice for American's of a general vague rightist bent will remain either sitting quietly at one of those indeterminably boring conservative speech sessions or standing at the back yelling "Name the Jew, Name the Jew" like an idiot.

There is one thing I am curious about though in your analysis of the American political scene. You mention the movements of Thurmond in 48 and Wallace in 68 as the only viable populist movements in electoral terms nationally in the U.S. He may not have been big nationally, but what does a fellow like you who has been around for a while think of the David Duke campaign? He certainly made a big stir in the early 90's in Louisiana winning election to the state legislature and winning a close to a majority of the white vote statewide running for the U.S. Senate.

The one thing strikng to me about Duke is the way he ran. He seemed to me to distance himself from any of the American far-right organizations and try to position himself as a legitimate Republican. Howdoes that figure in with your claim that > Simply partially avoiding the wraith of the self chosen while pointing out racial double standards couched in individualistic, Christian and constitutional terms has been a miserable failure. It seems to me that is exactly the tack David Duke used when he was electorally successful.

It strikes me that even David Duke recognized from his own experience that the strongly NS oriented groups and the advocates were completely unreliable in terms of political strategy and electoral success, and for that matter anything else, and felt compelled to distance himself from them, at least when he was actively in politics. He had some bad experiences with them, such as when The Spotlight (really the only journal of the far-right in America that ever gained some limited mass audience) refused to support his 1988 campaign for President as a populist. Duke's experiences strike me to be somewhat at odds with your observations that American nationalists need to be more strident, dogmatic, and radical.

In any event, the experiences of Duke and the Spotlight seem to illustrate the odd nature of the populist far-right in this country. They obviously seem to occasionally find widepread popular suport, but seem to be unable to translate this into permanent organizational strength or a well defined, popular "movement". It strikes me that's because they find the other people in "the movement" or for that matter each other, so difficult to work with, as you can tell following their experiences.

Of course to some extent that seems characterstic of far-right organizations. That's certainly something European nationalists for instance seem to have a lot of experience with.

triskelion

2003-05-10 19:06 | User Profile

Hello all,

As time is short right now and I don't feel to good I will cover the points raised by FW latter. For now I will give some instruction on reading the "failure" and "response to my critics O.D." threads. I have always had a hard time linking to Polinco so here is how to get those threads.

go to www.polinco.com, click on the members icon directly below the graphic, click on the letter T, click on Triskelion,click on the "search for all posts by this user" icon in the upper right hand corner, click on page 3. You will be able to see those threads mentioned above and will note that FW, and everyone else, still has all of their posts up.

mwdallas

2003-05-10 19:22 | User Profile

It seems to me that is exactly the tack David Duke used when he was electorally successful.

Yes, but that was in Louisiana, a state unique -- even in the South -- in its resistance to the Inner Party's hegemony. Part of this unique resistance to the pathologization of gentile allegiances, I would speculate, is due to the significant portion of the population that remains part of the Roman Catholic Church.

triskelion

2003-05-12 21:38 | User Profile

FW said: > "Well you're right to some extent about the orientations of American paleocons, and the roots of their thinking in the Southern agrarian movement, which may seem a little parochial to the outsider." To which I must point out that while I have a fondness for agrarianism as I see it as an American form of Distributalism and a fine starting point for activism apart from the American infatuation with reformist nostalgia has crippled the paleocons.

FW Quote" > "I would just point out to you that your criticisms of mainstream paleoconservatism in this regard aren't unlike what Sam Francis says from time to time. He has questioned "the veneration of constitutional idols" and like you fiercely attacked Buchanan for his 2000 running mate among other things. Sometimes it seems you lump him in with the other paleo-conservatives such as academicians around Fleming et.al."

Reply: I am pleasantly surprised to hear that Dr. Francis has been able to think beyond ahistorical and substanceless legalities that define the paleo-cons. My condemnations of him however remain the same as I stated in the Dr. Steuckers thread recently. What I have read of Fleming seems to me to be vary typical paleo-con output with nothing particularly meritorious but simply talk of tradition and republicanism removed from the Organicism that created it combined with an unwillingness to confront any matter that may threaten the establishment he supposedly objects to.

Buchanan is, to my mind, a contemptuous example of false opposition. After hearing his blather about how America fought against the Axis for muliracialism on a TV talk show a couple of years back I knew he was a fraud. His more recent praise of Martin Luther King and the so called civil rights movement simply restated the sickening depths of his treason to my racial kinfolk across the Atlantic. His presidential campaigns were shockingly amateurish for a long term veteran of the establishment which was obvious to anyone that spent some time going to campaign schools in the states showing that is not a viable to advance our ideas.

Which raises basic reality that paleo-cons and racialists of any description in the states should totally abandon any interest in presidential politics for the next electoral cycles. I say this because the fact is that even a populist campaign by someone like Buchanan can't possible go anywhere. When one considers that even mainstream paleo-cons have zero institutional pull within the GOP, no state wide or even local electoral strongholds and no media influence worth mentioning so it simply is a colossal waste to invest millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man hours in a presidential campaign. If genuine paleo-cons are to become relevant they need to: a) develop a viable theoretical frame work and critique of pretenders like Buchanan B) have professional populist and "high brow"publications c) build local electoral bases of support d) have organizations that are something more then short term personality vehicles that active outside of the electoral season FW quote: > "Just as an aside, how many Nazi's would continence a look to people like this, "Pareto's theory of societal decay"(which I recognize from my acquaintance with James Burnham) or the something similar ? Not many I know of. The Nazi's most paleo's know are the one's who sit at the back of the room while they speaking screaming "name the Jew, name the Jew". Maybe this feeling accounts for some of these "ritualistic condemnations of 'nazis' " although again you do have to distinguish here among paleos here."

Reply: you have a good point here if we restrict "nazis" to the Hitler fetish cult groups that dominate the American scene. When I speak of National Socialism I explicitly reject such models. I am good friends with the head of the very small and new American branch of the ITP and he is very well versed in matters of ideology, economics and societal matters as is Irmin at [url=http://library.flawlesslogic.com]http://library.flawlesslogic.com[/url] whom I admired ever since he verbally and publically trounced countless feebers including Jim Rob and the sodomites at antiwar.com . I was set upon my current ideological course by a skinhead that introduced me to LeBon and Pendal a great many years back and most long term racialists that I have known are pretty well read although I admit that such is not the case in the states.

It is of course vital to "name the jew" but how one does it matters a great deal as does having a realistic public policy to address societal decline and a strategic plan to advance said methods. Neither paleo-cons or racially oriented types in the states have given serious thoughts to these matters and they are non entities in societal terms as a result. FW said: > "It strikes me in general though that it is difficult enough to keep track of our own ideas and movement(s), much less what goes on overseas. While it might be interesting to study the lessons of the ENR, it would seem the viable political alternatives in practice for American's of a general vague rightist bent will remain either sitting quietly at one of those indeterminably boring conservative speech sessions or standing at the back yelling "Name the Jew, Name the Jew" like an idiot."

Reply: It seems to me that what should be done is not aping the ENR or simply appropriating in mass manifestos or rhetoric designed for environs dissimilar to the states as that would be absurdly non-conservative. Instead, it seems that a better task would be to pay real attention to the small canon of genuine paleo-con thought along with European literature which lends itself to "repackaging" into valid prescriptions for public policy recommendations and strategic doctrines for gaining influence.

FW quote:> ** "There is one thing I am curious about though in your analysis of the American political scene. You mention the movements of Thurmond in 48 and Wallace in 68 as the only viable populist movements in electoral terms nationally in the U.S. He may not have been big nationally, but what does a fellow like you who has been around for a while think of the David Duke campaign? He certainly made a big stir in the early 90's in Louisiana winning election to the state legislature and winning a close to a majority of the white vote statewide running for the U.S. Senate.

The one thing striking to me about Duke is the way he ran. He seemed to me to distance himself from any of the American far-right organizations and try to position himself as a legitimate Republican. How does that figure in with your claim that - 1. > ** Simply partially avoiding the wraith of the self chosen while pointing out racial double standards couched in individualistic, Christian and constitutional terms has been a miserable failure.**

It seems to me that is exactly the tack David Duke used when he was electorally successful.

It strikes me that even David Duke recognized from his own experience that the strongly NS oriented groups and the advocates were completely unreliable in terms of political strategy and electoral success, and for that matter anything else, and felt compelled to distance himself from them, at least when he was actively in politics. He had some bad experiences with them, such as when The Spotlight (really the only journal of the far-right in America that ever gained some limited mass audience) refused to support his 1988 campaign for President as a populist. Duke's experiences strike me to be somewhat at odds with your observations that American nationalists need to be more strident, dogmatic, and radical.

In any event, the experiences of Duke and the Spotlight seem to illustrate the odd nature of the populist far-right in this country. They obviously seem to occasionally find widespread popular support, but seem to be unable to translate this into permanent organizational strength or a well defined, popular "movement". It strikes me that's because they find the other people in "the movement" or for that matter each other, so difficult to work with, as you can tell following their experiences.

Of course to some extent that seems characteristic of far-right organizations. That's certainly something European nationalists for instance seem to have a lot of experience with."**

Reply: I think little of Duke in part because his moral character has left him political unviable as did his past association with the costumed fetish crowd. He ran a very good campaign for Governor but the fact is that he was able to do so primarily because his personal charisma allowed him to build a personality vehicle that made his bids for office viable. It was obviously unwise for some one with so little political experience as Duke to run for Governor without first building up a state wide organization which a freshman in the state legislature clearly could not obtain.

Such a campaign can't be seen a model in any case because were Duke to have been elected Governor he would have done little to nothing in public policy terms because he lacked any sort of organizational backing. It must be said that viable political campaigns that are almost never based solely upon a single man's charisma because if scandal hits him ( like it has Duke) or if the leader is killed (like the recent case of populists in Holland) the whole movement simply disintegrates.

Note that I never said that "American nationalists need to be more strident, dogmatic, and radical" what I have said is that they have to have a viable set of public policy prescriptions that address the needs of Occidental America and that means that they need to dump the Hollywood Nazi crap and present a positive, life affirming racialism free from the mindless hate that one sees so much of in your country. Being a viable political force means having the sense to build tactical and strategic alliances with any significant portion of white society that could benefit from genuine racialism's adherence to economic and political decentralization but such populations need to be courted properly rather then encounter some shrill cry of treason to all that pretend the world has not changed since the Ã¢â¬Ë30s.

In Europa populist parties are doing well almost everywhere and they are heavily supported by racialists whom very often can make or break a bid for office. They do so out of primarily strategic interests rather then as a matter agreement. Plenty of effective racial nationalist groups exist in several European countries although they certainly are not able to achieve much in national electoral terms in most cases. In some cases, this situation is due to fifth columnists, personality battles/mismanagement or state oppression. Primarily however it seems to me that genuine change will not and con not occur without a systemic crisis and such a situation requires the development of a cadre able to take advantage of such a situation. Several genuine nationalist groups within Europa are well along the way to being able to seize societal opportunities for change and one should judge them in such terms.

Franco

2003-05-12 22:48 | User Profile

**Frederick William I wrote:

either sitting quietly at one of those indeterminably boring conservative speech sessions or standing at the back yelling "Name the Jew, Name the Jew" like an idiot. **

"Like an idiot," huh? Maybe if Pat "sometimes I'm a paleo/nationalist, sometimes not, mostly not" Buchanan would have Named the Jew long about, oh, 1980, we Whites would not be in this Yiddish mess in the first place?

Why are the Jew-namers the bad guys? Why is the onus on us? We did not fail. Your paleocon pals failed. I will not accept blame for their failures. :taz:

Frederick William I

2003-05-12 23:12 | User Profile

Originally posted by Franco@May 12 2003, 22:48 Maybe if Pat "sometimes I'm a paleo/nationalist, sometimes not, mostly not" Buchanan would have Named the Jew long about, oh, 1980, we Whites would not be in this Yiddish mess in the first place? And maybe not. If you don't like Pat's message you or your friends are always free to run yourself.> Why are the Jew-namers the bad guys? Why is the onus on us? See Above. > We did not fail. Your paleocon pals failed. I will not accept blame for their failures. :taz:

At least they did something or at least tried to do something on their own instead of just nitpicking everyone else.

Franco

2003-05-12 23:22 | User Profile

** Frederick William I wrote:

At least they did something or at least tried to do something on their own instead of just nitpicking everyone else.**

Oh, yeah, sure -- Buchanan picking a Black female for a political running mate in a presidential election is really "doing something."

Please tell me that you were joking when you wrote that... [snottiness withdrawn at the last moment] :taz:

triskelion

2003-05-13 02:25 | User Profile

Hello Franco,

I feel that I must protest your taring a principled fellow like FW with the same brush as the odious Buchanan. I know for a fact that FW is commited to racialism and that it is simply not civil or productive to condemn him for the cowardice of others.

It seems to me that FW has no problem with "naming the jew" as one can tell from the link found at the end of each of his posts and much of his writing. Instead he simply goes about doing it in a way very differant then what one sees at VNN. Certainly I thought that comment about Buchanan "doing something" was off but I think we should try to be more considerate of those that are on our side or could be.

Just as an aside, I was wondering why you go by Franco when you seem to be clearly supportive of the NSDAP regime which never was simpatico with the Dictadura. After the war the Franco regime became totally detached from the Carlist and Flangists factions that brought it to power so I wonder why you identify with that regime?

Franco

2003-05-13 02:59 | User Profile

Trisk --

I go by the name of Franco because it is an old message board handle. I don't change it because I am already known as Franco. So I just kept that name.

If I change it, it will confuse some people....

Frederick William I

2003-05-13 06:05 | User Profile

Originally posted by triskelion@May 12 2003, 21:38 **Buchanan is, to my mind, a contemptuous example of false opposition. After hearing his blather about how America fought against the Axis for muliracialism on a TV talk show a couple of years back I knew he was a fraud. His more recent praise of Martin Luther King and the so called civil rights movement simply restated the sickening depths of his treason to my racial kinfolk across the Atlantic. His presidential campaigns were shockingly amateurish for a long term veteran of the establishment which was obvious to anyone that spent some time going to campaign schools in the states showing that is not a viable to advance our ideas.........

You do cover a lot of issues here. I'l just focus on the Buchanan question. If I do get impatient with Franco for his simplicism and his attacks on Buchanan, and reaffirm by support of him, it is because Franco does not ever bother to participate in these discussions on Buchanan or otherwise seem to want to join in our good faith efforts to address these issues about Buchanan, preferring to use this forum, in his own words, just as free advertising for VNN and its propaganda, which he seems to expect us just to show fuehrerprinzup obiessance to.

The Buchanan question is involved, and actually even the VNN people are rather two-faced about Buchanan and paleodom, being a lot more involved with Buchanan than they admit. We've gone over Buchanan in depth at numerous times in this forum, and discussed many of the issues you raise, and pretty much come to a different consencus than you have, although there always are some variations in opinion, as would be expected. You may have your acquired your own prejudices on Pat, but generally these are the same things we've already addressed in these threads. Even if you've come to different conclusions elsewhere in your discussions in your circles, I feel no need to apologize for our own positions on Pat, which we've worked at some length to come up with.

Enclosed are four excellent past links I think on Buchanan and the various of hiswritings. The initial perspective ranges from that of cautious acceptance (Middle American News) to criticism from the semitiphobic side (Bill White's Piece) to the Neocon criticism to mainstream left-liberal criticism (the SPLC piece). If you seriously want to address the Buchanan question with your own perspective commenting on one of these threads might be the best way to start. But I feel no need to apologize for my stance on Buchanan or anything else, at least not to people that never have the courage or fortitude to concretely engage our discussions on these issues, seeming to considering VNN style chants and name-calling a superior method of discourse.

Review of "Death of the West" in Middle American News (CoCC's/Francis's Mag)
(Texas Dissident)That's one thing I actually like about 'The Right,' deviate a bit here or there from someone else's idea of Orthodoxy and the offended is ready to assemble a firing squad. One doesn't readily observe that on the Left, although I admit I don't follow their internal skirmishes closely or at all, really........ With regards to Patrick Buchanan, again I am dubious. Few individuals seem to be more of a lightning rod for criticism than he. Now I have my own issues with Mr. Buchanan and no doubt he is not perfect. But as far as his detractors go, when they have taken the maverick steps Buchanan did beginning in 1992 up through 2000, then they have a leg to stand on. The point man always gets shot at the most and takes the most heat and it's easy to say what should or shouldn't be done from the rear. Squinty Pat's Rag Denounces "Anti-Semitism"
**To say that BushÃ¢â¬â¢s foreign policy is Ã¢â¬ÅcontrolledÃ¢â¬Â by the Jewish cabal is to say that their words do not appeal to the presidentÃ¢â¬â¢s reason, but somehow work magic on his mind, hypnotically dizzying him into an intellectual vertigo where heÃ¢â¬â¢s completely beside himself. If this is not the good old central-European mythical picture of Jews Ã¢â¬â as wily manipulators who hypnotize you into submission with their clever, sweet, false words Ã¢â¬â what is?

BuchananÃ¢â¬â¢s theory is far-fetched, then, and its foundations are genuinely anti-Semitic, his contrary professions notwithstanding..........

..........And thatÃ¢â¬â¢s why BuchananÃ¢â¬â¢s Reform Party went bust, barely garnering a singe percent of the vote.

In the eyes of Buchanan, all this cannot be the upshot of fair game. It must be the result of back-door manipulations by dark, faceless forces. When these faceless forces are personified, itÃ¢â¬â¢s only to be expected that they will turn out to be Jews. In other words, Buchanan is in a state of denial about the intellectual and political merits of his worldview, and anti-Semitism is just his way of trying to cope. [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=7419&hl=death+of+the+west]Buchanan Style Conservatism is a Thing of the Past[/url]**

**Members of the neo-Nazi National Alliance, headed by the late William Pierce (see Ã¢â¬ÅFacing the FutureÃ¢â¬Â in this issue), were also among the foot soldiers who enlisted in the Buchanan brigades. (Ã¢â¬ÅOf all the people who are involved in politics in America, I would give the best rating to Pat Buchanan,Ã¢â¬Â Pierce stated in a 1999 interview.)...........

Far-right activists hoped that the Reform Party, with Buchanan at the helm, would become an American version of Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National, the neo-fascist organization that commands close to 20 percent of the vote in France. But Buchanan alienated much of his core constituency when he chose Ezola Foster, a black woman who was a member of the John Birch Society, as his vice-presidential running mate. [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=25&t=3556&hl=death+of+the+west]Reforming the Right -SPLC Attacks Buchanan, Chronicles, etc.[/url]**

triskelion

2003-05-13 08:00 | User Profile

Hello FW,

I understand your being upset with Franco so I will not cover that issue again as we both have expressed our selves on the matter.

As to Buchanan I don't think that much need be said. Anyone that praises the so called civil rights movement, makes ritualistic condemnations of "racism", thinks that Martin Luther King is a great role model and thinks a Leninist Congoid is a good choice for Vice President is not someone that is on your side. He is not a conservative because he does not try to conserve those that created the West.

He has no political organization so if was to get elected he could not accomplish much if anything in public policy terms. In any case, his last campaign was a huge blunder that fell apart because he failed to realize that the Reform Party is nothing more then the personality vehicle for Perot and a playpen for his cronies. Buchanan has zero electoral prospects and I think you know as much.

The vast amount of time and money thrown down the Buchanan presidential rathole could have supported literally dozens of genuine paleos running in local races, built up several state level organizations and launched a few publications as well. These things could have served as the basis for real cadre movement and real opposition to the establishment. The wasted energy and resources is very depressing but what is far worse is that the same fatally flawed non-strategy will likely be repeated until America is every bit the third world den of misery that India is. I am glad that I convinced some of my relatives to return to the motherland.

Texas Dissident

2003-05-13 08:44 | User Profile

Originally posted by triskelion@May 13 2003, 03:00 **...and thinks a Leninist Congoid is a good choice for Vice President is not someone that is on your side.

Where are you getting your information, triskelion? Say what you will about her qualifications for potentially becoming the VP, but to label Ezola Foster as a Leninist Congoid is demeaning and absurd. The lady was/is a Bircher and a solid social conservative. I assume you mean Lenora Fulani, who was most assuredly never a candidate for Buchanan's VP selection. Making that mistake, deliberately or not, puts you in the same anti-Buchanan camp with the ADL goons who did everything in their power to smear and thwart Buchanan's 2000 presidential run. Not good company to keep in any context, in my opinion.

**He is not a conservative because he does not try to conserve those that created the West. **

Buchanan's not a conservative?! Man, oh man. I welcome your thought-provoking contributions to the board, triskelion, no disrespect intended at all and please continue, but I can see that there are deep, deep chasms between your worldview and mine. But I guess that is why we have this board. :)

In my opinion, Patrick Buchanan, despite his shortcomings, has done more for true conservatism, nationalism and demographic consciousness among American whites than any other single, living American that I can think of. If one can define a man by his enemies, then any honest follower of modern day American politics knows that no politician in recent memory has received more scorn, slander and abuse by individuals and groups that I would define as enemies of our Republic. Has he done everything perfect? Heck no! But he has done 100 times more than most and at great personal cost. I see no value in denigrating his efforts. Rather we should study and learn from his mistakes and successes in order to build and not tear down.

Frederick William I

2003-05-13 09:02 | User Profile

Originally posted by triskelion@May 13 2003, 08:00 **As to Buchanan I don't think that much need be said. Anyone that praises the so called civil rights movement, makes ritualistic condemnations of "racism", thinks that Martin Luther King is a great role model ...He is not a conservative because he does not try to conserve those that created the West. ** I think you are referring to "Death of the West". A moderating trend in the book as indicated by his King/remarks was criticized by a lot of paleoconservatives as noted in the Middle American News review, although you have to put in context of what he said in the rest of the book, which of course is basicly concerned with western cultural, and yes racial decline, and for that was mercilessly savafed in the neocon press. As I noted we've discussed this at some length.

**and thinks a Leninist Congoid is a good choice for Vice President is not someone that is on your side. ** Are you referring to Fuliani or Foster? I doubt Foster's fellow JBS members would agree that she was a Leninist.

Anyway, I never really understood this fastidiousness over Presidential running mates among people like Francis and the CoCC (reportedly Francis and Buchanan split up over this question). Veeps in America are constitutionally powerless. Politically Buchanan the main target in Buchanan's various coaltioning-outreach program seemed to be an anti-Israel coalition - to which he seemed willing to make some outreach to the black community on a broad spectrum, from Fuliani to Sharpton to Foster. It may have seemed crazy, but it wasn't devoid of some logic, even if it was defective logic.

**He has no political organization so if was to get elected he could not accomplish much if anything in public policy terms. In any case, his last campaign was a huge blunder that fell apart because he failed to realize that the Reform Party is nothing more then the personality vehicle for Perot and a playpen for his cronies. Buchanan has zero electoral prospects and I think you know as much.

As the last link I had shows, if Buchanan's campaign was a huge blunder, it was a blunder a lot of people bought into, including more than a few NA members.

The wasted energy and resources is very depressing but what is far worse is that the same fatally flawed non-strategy will likely be repeated until America is every bit the third world den of misery that India is. I am glad that I convinced some of my relatives to return to the motherland.

Well I don't want to sound picky, but what exactly do you refer to as your pristine "motherland"? I assume you don't mean Denmark, as they certainly have their own problems in these regards.

Walter Yannis

2003-05-13 11:39 | User Profile

Originally posted by Texas Dissident@May 13 2003, 08:44 ** In my opinion, Patrick Buchanan, despite his shortcomings, has done more for true conservatism, nationalism and demographic consciousness among American whites than any other single, living American that I can think of. **

I agree.

PJB's ideas are mostly right on the money, even if his political campaigns have been hapless.

What does it profit us to throw dirt on a man like PJB, even if we disagree sharply with him on some issues and actions?

I think that Pat's public stance on race is not as strong as it should be, and his choice of running mates was simply catastrophic for his campaign (that I contributed to generously, I might add).

But that doesn't change the fact that "Death of the West" - to name the most recent example - was a best seller of sorts and got millions of whites in America and around the world thinking about the possibility of their own displacement. What have any of us done that even compares with that?

We need friends, and we need to stick together. PJB is a friend, not an enemy. As are Amren and others.

Slamming PJB is no way to build a broad movement.

Walter

Texas Dissident

2003-05-13 17:58 | User Profile

Originally posted by AntiYuppie@May 13 2003, 12:36 **There is no explanation for his choice of an obscure negro as a running mate other than political pandering, a gesture designed to show, "hey look, I'm not a racist" to the very people that Buchanan ought to despise. **

I there is one other explanation - everyone on his list in front of Foster refused to run with him. I believe this is quite plausible when you consider the political hot potatoe he had become at that point by jumping into the Reform party. I had hoped for a VP friendly with labor (Hoffa, Traficant), but the Establishment's guns were out and firing and the prospect of political suicide tends to narrow the field dramatically. Again, say what you will about Foster's qualifications, she is certainly more than vulnerable there, but to her credit she answered Pat's call without hesitation, represented herself with class and stood beside him when everyone else was abandoning the ship. That kind of loyalty and integrity is worth something in my book.

Franco

2003-05-13 19:03 | User Profile

** AntiYuppie wrote:

The biggest problem with Francis is not that his racialism is too lukewarm, but rather that he tries to strike a mainstream paleolibertarian/constitutionalist pose at times to remain in good graces with the Flemings and Rockwells who run his columns, when in fact his political instincts seem to be in contrary directions.**

AY raises a good point. Paleos are WAY too concerned with "remaining respectable." Paleos want to hang out with their Republican pals on Monday, and go to a Klan rally on Wednesday. They have their marshmellows in both Repub. and "hard-core" campfires all of the time. Such maybe-kinda-sorta attitudes hinder the velocity of any message that they try to send, since no one can figure out exactly what they stand for. Look at Buchanan -- one minute you think he's a nationalist, and the next he's talking about how "WWII was necessary to stop the Holocaust" as he did just the other day.

What does Pat stand for? What will he say from one day to the next? Who knows? At least Linderites are consistent...

:hit:

PaleoconAvatar

2003-05-13 19:38 | User Profile

Originally posted by Franco@May 13 2003, 15:03 ** Look at Buchanan -- one minute you think he's a nationalist, and the next he's talking about how "WWII was necessary to stop the Holocaust" as he did just the other day. **

Franco,

Is that a direct quote from PJB? If so, he must be going senile. I'm willing to give him a wide latitude, given that his books are useful tools (did you know Buchanan cited an "American Dissident Voices" broadcast of Kevin Strom's in his DOW footnotes?). But that Holocaust comment is just too much...it's not far off from the neocons' whining about how we had to intervene militarily in Afghanistan to free the women from their veils. PJB of all people should know better than to introduce notions of charity into foreign policy--that's part of the Wilsonian impulse that got America into this whole mess in the first place.

My views are very much in line with TD's and I also had hoped for a Buchanan coalition with labor through Hoffa, or Traficant's populist, blue-collar roots, but that didn't come about. Buchanan did get turned down by the candidates for his VP slot, and he therefore settled on a choice that may have been cleverly picked to confuse the media stereotypes surrounding his campaign--a stunt that I can almost admire for its Machiavellianism. Of course, if it had actually worked, I'd admire it even more.

Of course, I wonder why people think that any particular presidential candidate will be the direct line to American restoration? Does anyone believe that this country can be rescued by one candidate in one fell swoop? Buchanan, for all his flaws, would have been a nice stepping stone. And suppose he'd had a heart attack and a Black woman were named president. How would we be any worse off in that event than we are today? We already have a Black guy (with Jewish ancestry at that) in line for the presidency, although more than one person would have to become incapacitated in the line of succession for that to take effect. The whole issue is largely symbolic anyway.

And if the Black woman came into office as President, I could see some good coming from it--it would generate chaos and maybe shame the White male electorate into realizing just how far things have slipped out of their hands, and then they might act. After all, for this country to be saved, doesn't it have to get worse to get better? And what happens to us is in that event is no different than what our kinsmen are going through in Zimbabwe and South Africa--they already live under a substantially Black power structure. Yet, I think they still have a chance to pull through it. Adversity is a great unifier and a great motivator, and we men of the West have been in tight fixes in the past and pulled through nicely. Does this make me an optimist?

triskelion

2003-05-13 23:09 | User Profile

I am totally baffled by the defense of Buchanan as someone that supposedly cares about racial matters. Buchanan has a regular column on the arch Zionist rag WND which by itself demonstrates that he is faux opponent of the destruction of Occidental America. Anyone that wants to can go to that site and read "The Neo-Cons and Nixon's Southern strategy in which he positively beams with pride when talking about PJB's old boss Nixon meeting with King while proving his multi-racial credentials with gems such as these: "Between 1969 and 1974, Nixon Ã¢â¬â who believed that blacks had gotten a raw deal in America and wanted to extend a helping hand: raised the civil rights enforcement budget 800 percent; doubled the budget for black colleges; appointed more blacks to federal posts and high positions than any president, including LBJ; adopted the Philadelphia Plan mandating quotas for blacks in unions, and for black scholars in colleges and universities; invented "Black Capitalism" (the Office of Minority Business Enterprise), raised U.S. purchases from black businesses from $9 million to $153 million, increased small business loans to minorities 1,000 percent, increased U.S. deposits in minority-owned banks 4,000 percent; raised the share of Southern schools that were desegregated from 10 percent to 70 percent. Wrote the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1975, "It has only been since 1968 that substantial reduction of racial segregation has taken place in the South." "The charge that we built our Republican coalition on race is a lie."
So that's what the paleo-con standard bearer thinks are great accomplishments. I've heard support for the same kind of programs from pretty much every American mainstream politician for the last 40 years so if that's conservatism I want nothing to do with it.

In case someone may still doubt Buchanan's progressive credentials on race I draw your attention to his defense of multi-racialism in speech "To Reunite a Nation" which was found at VDARE: "Like all of you, I am awed by the achievements of many recent immigrants. Their contributions to Silicon Valley are extraordinary. The over-representation of Asian-born kids in advanced high school math and science classes is awesome, and, to the extent that it is achieved by a superior work ethic, these kids are setting an example for all of us. The contributions that immigrants make in small businesses and hard work in tough jobs that don't pay well merits our admiration and deepest respect. And, many new immigrants show a visible love of this country and an appreciation of freedom that makes you proud to be an American."

The speech mentioned the numerous down sides of current rates of immigration but then the statement above indicates that Buchanan clearly thinks that culture exists separate of race and that learning the host population language, obeying the laws and having a job make an alien into an American. Basically, this position is no different then the neo-con position on race that supposedly upsets the readership. Obviously, Buchanan has no problem with immigration and multi-racialism per say but rather he simply wants to reduce the rate of your dispossession it in the hopes that racial aliens adopt what currently passes for American culture which why in the same speech he states: "That is why I am proposing immigration reform to make it possible to fully assimilate the 30 million immigrants who have arrived in the last thirty years."

If conservatism means any thing it's the recognition that the preservation of "the union of blood and history" is the purpose of governance and society. Conservatism is Organic or it is a sham. One can also go to AmRen and read the quote that " First, it is wrong to feel bitter or betrayed. I have spoken only once with Mr. Buchanan at any length, but it has never been my impression that he thinks in racial terms. I don't doubt he is sincere in his desire to maintain the European character and traditions of our country, but I do not think he understands that only the biological descendants of the creators of those traditions will carry them forward in a meaningful way." Which was written in defense of Buchanan picking a black running mate.

I should say that TD was correct that I confused Fulaini with Foster so that rather then have a Congoid Leninist as a running mate he only courted the support of such a person. While TD mentions that Foster is JBS society member I don't see how this is much of an endorsement given the rather extensive criticism that Dr. R.P. Oliver made of that organization being a false front which one can find portions of on the John "the birdman's" Bryant's site. Basically, Buchanan picked an obscure, unqualified Negro as a running to prove his anti-racist credentials. Her conservatism was very typically of the culture sans race idea promoted by neo-cons and her positions are in substance, if not tone, the same as the Bush administration. Most odd was TD's comment that by condemning the multiracialist Buchanan one is somehow on par with the ADL that also objects to PJB. By this logic one is made pro-Stalin by condemning Trotsky or that being anti Strasser makes one pro-Hitler. Such agreements are absurd in the extreme and I think the TD knows it. If Buchanan is wrong from a racialist view point I'll say so and doing so in no way equates one with the ADL.
While it is true that Buchanan objects to affirmative action he does so because it encourages identity politics and racial separatism which he objects to as seen here: " "For all of these race- and ethnic-based policies Ã¢â¬â in admissions, hirings, promotions, firings, contracts Ã¢â¬â have not only failed to heal the old divisions. They have created new ones. They have engendered an "identity politics" where what is central to one's self-identification is the ethnic or racial group to which one belongs." In this respect Buchanan is like various leftist anti-racist academics that view affirmative action as a hindrance to the promotion of multi-culturalism and an issue that can be used to rally racial conscious whites so they propose it's abolishment as a result. An example of how Buchanan operates was seen with the selection of Ezola Foster while claiming he didn't know that she was a member of the John Birch Society. Reading press-release writer Scott McConnell's report on the choice and his Semitically Correct opinion that race doesn't matter pretty much says that PJB is no Eurocentric. The guy is so brainwashed he still believes that a multi cultural America can be conservative and worth preserving, even though he was fired by the New York Post because professional Mestizos didn't like his mild opinion that there are good reasons not to make Puerto Rico the 51st state. In the "Poisoning of American Politics" article on WND Buchanan attacks Moran for saying " "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this." The faux conservative Buchanan said that Moran was wrong and insensitive to say such things.
Buchanan does openly condemn racialists here: [url=http://users.mo-net.com/mlindste/ml102500.html]http://users.mo-net.com/mlindste/ml102500.html[/url] I note that FW realizes that Buchanan supports the communist , anti white pervert Martin Luther King and that neither he nor anyone else even attempted to suggest that the previously mentioned instances of BJB groveling before the alter of racial egalitarianism were something other then correct. I have heard PJB whine about the great virtue of Americas war against the Axis to make Europa safe for Jewish interests on TV numerous times yet I have not heard him utter a word about American saturation bombing campaigns on German cities, the barbaric conduct of the allies towards the German people. In short, on a matters pertaining to race he sounds like Bush save that he thinks the multi-racial transformation should be done more slowly. The bottom line is that Buchanan is openly committed to a multi-racial America inspite of the fact that were all immigration to end today the natural demographic trends would still result in an America with a non white majority within a few decades. The undeniable reality is that the vast majority of non-whites will never "assimilate" as is obvious to anyone that has spent a few months in the states. It is also obvious that those aliens that are acceptable to Buchanan have simply and superficially adopted to a decayed and dying society with zero interests in the traditions and values held by your ancestors.
FW seems to think that Buchanan's campaign brought a lot of people into it. Yet the fact is that his presidential effort garnered him about 1% of the votes cast nation wide, he didn't win a single electoral vote or come even close at a cost of several million dollars that could have been far better spent else where. His campaign organization is gone which simply reinforces the reality that personal charisma alone is not a sound basis for political activism. Again, the unpleasant reality that presidential politics are totally beyond paleo-cons (including pretenders like Buchanan) means that building local bases of support is vital and that currently you don't have any is simply something that you can't ignore. FW Said: "Well I don't want to sound picky, but what exactly do you refer to as your pristine "motherland"? I assume you don't mean Denmark, as they certainly have their own problems in these regards." To which I reply that my pristine motherland is the Faroes which are 100% Nordic and has a quality of life that Americans can only dream of. Just as an example of what I mean is that crime is very low here as evidenced by the fact that we had our first armed robbery in 12 years about 2 years back and none since.

As to Danmark it certainly has troubles but again the racial situation is far better then in the states, even the big cities, as can be seen by anyone that has visited. While I have serious differences with the populist, rather then nationalist, Dansk Folkeparti of Pia KjÃÂ¦rsgÃÂ¥rd it is presently is part of the ruling coalition and the third largest party in the country winning 12% of the vote. More importantly, we have thrown out plenty of asylum seekers, drastically reduced all forms of immigration, dramatically reduced welfare payments to aliens and even thrown out some aliens married to Danes. If you hunt about I am sure you will see plenty of hysterical condemnations of what the People's Party and everyone seems to realize that a very large block with in the party are real nationalists that are slowly succeeding in pushing the party towards a real folkish direction.

Although it seems that no here wants to admit it the fact is that Buchanan is not interested in racial preservation and that he will never go any where in electoral terms. Mainstream paleo-conservatism is a non entity in societal terms due to the problems which I mentioned relating to ideological problems, a lack of organizational competence, no strategic doctrine and an unwillingness to reconsider any basic tenet of their outlook or activities dooming them to endlessly repeat the errors of the past. In other words they are simply more socially respectable versions of the racist fringe groups we object to.

Frederick William I

2003-05-14 00:36 | User Profile

Originally posted by triskelion@May 13 2003, 23:09 I am totally baffled by the defense of Buchanan as someone that supposedly cares about racial matters. Buchanan has a regular column on the arch Zionist rag WND which by itself demonstrates that he is faux opponent of the destruction of Occidental America. Anyone that wants to can go to that site and read "The Neo-Cons and Nixon's Southern strategy in which he positively beams with pride when talking about PJB's old boss Nixon meeting with King while proving his multi-racial credentials with gems such as these:

You insist on picking on old Pat. OK I'll admit that article you are citing was not his finest moment. Actually Todd personally ensured that a rebuttal was published on Etherzone.

[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=5205]Can't Stand Pat[/url]

[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=5289&hl=buchanan,and,nixon]Article on Nixon/Buchanan Love[/url]

in fact there was a time when the whole TAC enterprise seemed to slipping yet. [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=5239]TAC Sells Out to Neocons[/url]

I guess articles by Pat in the TAC like "Whose War" and all the attacks Pat takes on account of it gives us a soft spot in our heart for the fellow. Which some may mistake for a soft head. That's understandable I suppose.

triskelion

2003-05-14 01:36 | User Profile

Hello FW,

In the end I simply think it is absurd to say that PJB is a conservative. He has from time to time said some things that are worth while and it is understandable that given the depressing state of things in the states that anyone of national prominence would from time to time say some things that need to be said will be meet with adoration. If he at some point had achieved the success of Wallace then I would be willing to moderate my criticism on the basis that he produced some results that could have led to something significant in practical terms.

In the end, my intentions are firstly to point out that PJB is fatally flawed from an ideological standpoint which prevented him from ever doing anything to reverse the rate of Occidental destruction in the states if he did manage to be elected. Secondly, national level politics simply are not an option for paleo-cons even if they did have a viable ideology so what has to happen is local activism and re-appraisal why and what exactly they intend to conserve and they plan to go about doing it.

Franco

2003-05-14 02:57 | User Profile

** Trisk wrote:

Right on, Trisk.

Look, the Buchananites at OD [Tex, PaleoconA, Frederick William I, Okie] are seeing something within Buchanan that was, in my opinion, never there in the first place. They are seeing the Buchanan glass as 1/2-full, maybe even 3/4-full, when that Buchanan glass was only 1/4-full at best, at it's highest level.

I would caution Whites to not make the assumption that Buchanan was ever, EVER a WN, or even a hard-core paleo. His record -- not his writings but his actions -- show that he was never WN or paleo in the true sense of those words.

PaleoconA suggested that PJB needed to play it safe to get a widespread audience. I understand that, but, that suggests that we have to play by the enemies rules, so to speak. We would not have to play by the enemies rules if just a few top "rightists" would stand up at once and fight, releasing essays and giving speeches at once that told the whole truth. That would embolden others, and a domino effect would occur all over America.

If all of a sudden Francis, Buchanan, Sobran and others named the enemy, all at once, in a concerted attack, HymieBoy's collective face would turn ghost-white. He would know that this would embolden other Whites to come forward as well; soon, paleos from California to Maine would be naming HymieBoy and he would have to run for the border.

The damn is gonna burst -- but will it burst soon enough? Not with PJB types around...at least, not his current type of incarnation. The gonads are there, under the surface -- will PJB and his ilk use them before it's too late? My guess is no -- Linder, Bill White and others will create a large alternative media that will grow and grow and grow, beating PJB types to the punch. Sad, as that way will take much longer than if PJB just Named You-Know-Who. Sure, his career would be finished, but it's already finished...

:sm:

PaleoconAvatar

2003-05-14 03:10 | User Profile

Originally posted by Franco@May 13 2003, 22:57 ** We would not have to play by the enemies rules if just a few top "rightists" would stand up at once and fight, releasing essays and giving speeches at once that told the whole truth. That would embolden others, and a domino effect would occur all over America.

Hasn't this already happened? Sobran and Francis mentioned uncomfortable truths about race and the Jews and were fired from the National Review and Washington Times, respectively. Buchanan has always been under attack on and off these past few years under charges of "anti-Semitism."

Individuals do speak up, and then others see those same individuals go down in flames at the hands of the Establishment. Career loss, divorces, loss of friends, all kinds of consequences come from being under fire for violating Establishment taboos.

And how do you think you're going to get these people to "take a stand?" Do you really think that if we keep hectoring PJB and the like about "naming the Jew" that somehow he'll become more vocal and strident? Where is this "frontal assault" and "storming of the gates" going to come from? The Jews are pretty good about locking those gates, and they know how to shut people like PJB up. Were PJB to make such a frontal assault, he'd never be on TV again, and then no one will hear him scream the truth, except maybe on his own website which the mass media has convinced people not to look at because it's "hate."

See the problems? I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but frontal assaults don't look good. They also run contrary to human nature--the "free rider phenomenon" dictates that were one person, or a few, to speak up, the others will remain silent and watch to see what happens to them, and let the few brave men bear the brunt of the Jewish counterattack. That's why no one joins in. It's even worse for we Americans because people don't feel the need to participate--they want to sit on the sofa and watch a "Made for TV" revolution, not create one themselves.

Under these conditions, the best one can hope for is to try to influence the culture by spreading memes with less fireworks and fanfare. I know that people like Rockwell don't like "stealthy" or less showy methods on the grounds it's impossible to "out-Jew the Jew," but what other option is there. This Movement will remain an underground one for some time in the future.

Frederick William I

2003-05-14 03:22 | User Profile

Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@May 14 2003, 03:10 > Originally posted by Franco@May 13 2003, 22:57 ** We would not have to play by the enemies rules if just a few top "rightists" would stand up at once and fight, releasing essays and giving speeches at once that told the whole truth. That would embolden others, and a domino effect would occur all over America.

** Yeah, this sounds suspiciously like Hitler's famous remark about the German army at the end of the world war - if just one person in the Army had stood up, their ranks would have immediately multiplied to a million. It was just typical Hitler like propaganda tool to avoid dealing with reality for the sake of continuing to maintain his old propoganda myths, in this case, the old "stab in the back" theory.

Myths that they feel are essential to maintain their own positions, in this case " all it takes is for brave people to take an uncompromising stand based on our dogmas and mantras" - no adjustment to reality is necessary.

PaleoconAvatar

2003-05-14 03:31 | User Profile

Originally posted by Frederick William I@May 13 2003, 23:22 ** > Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@May 14 2003, 03:10 > Originally posted by Franco@May 13 2003, 22:57 ** We would not have to play by the enemies rules if just a few top "rightists" would stand up at once and fight, releasing essays and giving speeches at once that told the whole truth. That would embolden others, and a domino effect would occur all over America.

Yes, FW I. That uncompromising dogma is just one step removed from the symbol-fetishists who dress up in costumes--one version does it outwardly and physically while the other strikes the same poses ideologically and with words. Both versions are deluded into thinking that results can be had by invoking magic symbols, or phrases, with enough passion behind it.

As much as I despise Ayn Rand, her distinction between the "primacy of consciousness" worldview and the "primacy of existence" worldview is useful here. In the case of the Strident Ones, they are captivated by the "primacy of consciousness" worldview, which holds that reality can be changed...by wishing really hard and woe to the person who tells me there is no Santa Claus!

Or to quote Sade..."yet one more effort, Frenchmen, if you would be Republicans!"

il ragno

2003-05-14 03:55 | User Profile

Sad, as that way will take much longer than if PJB just Named You-Know-Who. Sure, his career would be finished, but it's already finished

You hadda sift through a lot of Goebbels avatars to get to it, but finally Franco hits one dead solid perfect!

The final proof of the Failure of PaleoConservatism is its utter lack of new blood and fresh political capital. They cling to dinosaurs.....proven losers!....yet over and over you see the same names. PJB....SF....DD, for God's sake!

My God, here's Pat Buchanan....a man who could not be elected dogcatcher as he's proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Pat has been Election Day boxoffice poison for a decade now, yet still the corpse is exhumed every few years for another pointless vanity run. The simplest rule of thumb is a candidate who can't get his message out there can't win and shouldn't run. Pat - to this day - is routinely described in the mainstream press as a Holocaust denier, anti-Semite, Old Boy Republican, racist and - if all else fails - they still manage to shoehorn in "Nixon speechwriter"! It's not that Joe Public associates Buchanan with 'extremism' - it's that it's always the wrong 'extremism'. That a man with his own damn tv show for two decades has not been able to eradicate those false assumptions and effectively explain his beliefs to the nation is actually pretty mind-boggling if you think about it.

Who else do 'paleoconservatives' have? I thought the GOP was fairly hidebound in their nominating procedures but paleos are flies in Buchanan-Duke amber by comparison. They have not attracted nor cultivated any viable new rising stars in politics....by the very tenets of paleoconservatism (no yielding, ever; compromise is weakness) it is wholly incompatible with the everything-you-see-is-for-sale nature of modern power politics, in which compromise is the coin-o'-the-realm means to THE end.

Paleos read their manifestos aloud to each other in a stuffy, drafty and sparsely-attended private club. They measure virtue by their loathing of the rabble, and disdain the beer hall to a man. If change for the better is ever to come to America, it won't be because paleoconservatives lured Buchanan into throwing his adult-diaper into the ring in 2016.

It's not that a paleo or even a full-on WN candidate couldn't win in 2016, it's that it has to be a new face, without half-a-century of baggage to drahg behind him. New blood. Someone to embody the idea that the Old Right is constantly rejuvenating itself. And the Jew must be named. This is key. The first few national figures to do so will certainly be thrown to the wolves, but each violation of the taboo makes it easier for the next.....the price for heresy always comes down on volume. Franco is right. The only good Pat Buchanan can do for America is to take one for the team and go all-out naming you-know-who, in as principled & forceful a manner possible.

Frederick William I

2003-05-14 04:12 | User Profile

Originally posted by il ragno@May 14 2003, 03:55 **Who else do 'paleoconservatives' have? I thought the GOP was fairly hidebound in their nominating procedures but paleos are flies in Buchanan-Duke amber by comparison. They have not attracted nor cultivated any viable new rising stars in politics....by the very tenets of paleoconservatism (no yielding, ever; compromise is weakness) it is wholly incompatible with the everything-you-see-is-for-sale nature of modern power politics, in which compromise is the coin-o'-the-realm means to THE end.

Paleos read their manifestos aloud to each other in a stuffy, drafty and sparsely- attended private club. They measure virtue by their loathing of the rabble, and disdain the beer hall to a man. **

So what are you then Raggy? Do you associate yourself with this lot (with its rather glaring deficiencies in your eyes) or not? And what are your solutions? (or the rest of the VNN crowd). Obviously Pat, Canny Sammy, etc. don't care diddly about your opinions and are not by themselves going to start doing things your way. Are you going to quit reading your own stuffy little manifesto's, and go out and show the world how its done? (That goes for you Franco too).

Walter E Kurtz

2003-05-14 04:16 | User Profile

Originally posted by triskelion@May 13 2003, 02:00 ** Hello FW,

I understand your being upset with Franco so I will not cover that issue again as we both have expressed our selves on the matter.

I am late in arriving at this party...for that I do apologize.

RE: "Buchanan bashing"

with all due respect,

Buchanan "names the Jew" on a damn near daily basis. I refer you to the cover story of the March edition of "American Conservative". Pat engaged in an unabashed attack on the "Zionist cabal" that are the architects of the Bush administration's foreign policy.
Buchanan attacked Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Frum, and Feith publicly on "Buchanan and Press" during the weeks leading up to the war...he openly accused them of harboring "dual loyalties" with respect to their national allegience.
Buchanan selected Ezola Foster as a running mate because he wanted to appeal to ALL of the fringe elements of the American body politic...in hopes of garnering 5% of the vote in order to establish a viable third party that would be eligible for matching funds in the future. Buchanan does not live in Bizarro world, so he knew that there was no chance in hell that he would win the election...you guys are smart people, and you know this. Do not pretend that Pat is "pro-Negro" on account of this strategy.
Buchanan fought the "civil rights movement" tooth and nail when the battles were being fought in the 1960s...his credentials are solid. He never praised MLK.
```
                -Tom
```

PaleoconAvatar

2003-05-14 04:26 | User Profile

Originally posted by il ragno@May 13 2003, 23:55 ** If change for the better is ever to come to America, it won't be because paleoconservatives lured Buchanan into throwing his adult-diaper into the ring in 2016. **

We obviously won't be able to yell, "Go, Pat, Go!" under those conditions.

It's not that a paleo or even a full-on WN candidate couldn't win in 2016, it's that it has to be a new face, without half-a-century of baggage to drahg behind him. New blood. Someone to embody the idea that the Old Right is constantly rejuvenating itself. And the Jew must be named. This is key. The first few national figures to do so will certainly be thrown to the wolves, but each violation of the taboo makes it easier for the next.....the price for heresy always comes down on volume. Franco is right. The only good Pat Buchanan can do for America is to take one for the team and go all-out naming you-know-who, in as principled & forceful a manner possible.

What is the best way to attract new blood and new faces, and how does one motivate them to join this effort and act to give it their all, even though, as you admit, they'll have to throw themselves into the meat grinder reserved for the punishment of heretics?

il ragno

2003-05-14 04:47 | User Profile

Considering the fact that we're at war - the nature of this war and its short and long-term implications - not even a philoSemite could avoid naming the Jew. The names Wolfowitz and Perle and Sharon and Podhoretz keep coming up, over & over. Sorry, but Pat saying in March 2003 what Joe Sobran was saying a year earlier....hell, what Fisk & Cockburn were saying a year before!....well, it's nice.....but it's not Congressional-Medal-of-Honor nice. Harsh criticism of Israel may not be allowed to ever emerge from Brokaw or Rather's mouth, but it's not uncommon in leftist & European journalism. What Pat is doing is letting the Sobrans and the Fisks lay down a covering fire and then reiterating what they have already said but in a more measured, conciliatory tone. It's easy to name the Jew if you're blaming them for this particular war. (Who else could you name - the Finns?) Too many massed voices are doing it, for a multiplicity of reasons, for ZOG to single out & isolate each one now. That's why Sobran & Fisk- who said these things when they could * - have courage. "Whose War?" was well-done, but not particularly brave*. Not in March of 2003.

What takes courage is naming the Jew as a culturally destructive force. Funny but I remember Pat being Mr Culture War once upon a time and there is a crying need for some patriot with a profile & a platform, who understands the role the Jews are playing in that still-very-real culture war, to say so. And I never said he ought to rabble-rouse like an Alex Linder would...I wrote he should speak out "in as principled & forceful a manner as possible". I mean, this is supposed to be what he specializes in, right? Communicating forcefully? Guy's a speechwriter, columnist, tv personality, perennial candidate...why is it asking so much to have him use those talents to tell a truth that sooner or later will have to be said, by someone, at some point, in public?

Aside to FW: my "solution"? Dunno, but if it's not wildly populist in nature, it doesn't have a chance. We are not in any position to circumvent the beer hall. No paleo will ever be allowed to participate fully in the political process: any such candidates will be restricted to symbolic victories and crushing defeats a la Buchanan. The True Right must force itself into the process through a massive grass-roots groundswell, yet none of that will even be feasible without a galvanizing, charismatic figure to act as the lightning-rod.

triskelion

2003-05-14 04:49 | User Profile

Seeing that it is irrefutable that PJB was never electorally viable inspite of his high media profile and establishment connections this exchange has been unnecessary in large measure. Given that PJB's actions and words have been repeatedly proven him to be in opposition to the preservation of Western man in America the poverty of his character and ideas merit no further consideration in my mind so this post is the last I'll speak of him.

My initial statements that formed the basis of this thread and the responses found in the "my response to my critics at O.D." address more basic matters that simply should not be overlooked inspite of the discomfort they cause to those with high investments in mainstream paleocon figures/outlooks as well as the "ultra radical" racial establishment in the states. What I have done is layout some potential paths for those that wish pursue possible resurgent/revolutionary conservative prospects based upon examples that have met with more then a fair amount of success else where.

For those that chose to not to consider such ideological paths I have provided rather extensive coverage of hands on methods for advancing what ever ideology one may adhere to. The methods I describe were created by others and have over a decade of real world application proving them to be productive. I have used for a successful local campaign for myself, two successful bids for national offices on the mainland by others and managed to get quite close personally to such seats on my own behalf. I this simply to show that I have a bit of experience with campaigning and I even managed to pick up a bit of training from the neo-cons "Morton Blackwell Institute" and another couple of candidate training centers while I lived in the states. Naturally, I did so under false pretexts which is needed when dealing with deceitful and evil neo-cons. I am willing to do what I can to impart practical campaign knowledge to those that are interested in such things and are willing to put in the effort needed.

It seems that the real question is why dramatically unsuccessful methods/people/ideas never seem to fade from "rightist" circles in the states . That is a question I have no answer for. If some does not steer this thread back to the original emphases or the matter the matter of practical activism I will simply let it be. It should be known that I harbor no ill will to the mainstream paleos here inspite of the heat of the exchanges. Rather, I have vested interests in seeing the situation in the states improve and at times I become frustrated and depressed. Hopefully, this exchange was not a waste of time for those that have read it and those have posted.

il ragno

2003-05-14 04:56 | User Profile

**What is the best way to attract new blood and new faces, and how does one motivate them to join this effort and act to give it their all, even though, as you admit, they'll have to throw themselves into the meat grinder reserved for the punishment of heretics? **

You do it the way old-school police departments would handle internal scandals - by arranging for the ax to fall on men who'd already topped out their 20 and whose pensions were safe.

Walter E Kurtz

2003-05-14 04:56 | User Profile

Criticizing the Juden in 2003 requires a catalyst...Buchanan found a catalyst in the war, and he exploited it. I think that he did a hell of a job. Pat is not doing White America any good if he gets kicked off the air, and becomes subsequently identified by the masses as a two bit reject like Matt Hale, Tom Metzger and the rest of the circus clowns. If Pat came on TV one day and said "The Jew must be stopped"...the aforementioned scenario is exactly what would ensue. Use the Jew's strategy against him...do not play into his hands.

-Tom

Franco

2003-05-14 05:04 | User Profile

In other words, an appealing, folksy, galvanizing figure will have to emerge and Name The Jew for America and the West to be saved.

That's what I have been saying all along, in my own crude way. Who'da thunk that knuckle-draggin' Franco would be right???? Gee, I think that some apologizin' be in order, homedawgies!!

Il Ragno is a great guy.

:hit: :hit: :hit: :hit: :hit: :hit:

il ragno

2003-05-14 05:22 | User Profile

Il Ragno is a great guy.

Over five Hitler avatars! Gee, Frankie....um...thanks. But actually, I don't see how FW would owe you an apology because I wrote something that dovetailed with your own thinking. Anyhow, that 'galvanizing' thing just reflects reality. We vote for images and personalities exclusively now and cannot change that without first capitalizing on that.

PaleoconAvatar

2003-05-14 05:40 | User Profile

Originally posted by il ragno@May 14 2003, 01:22 > Il Ragno is a great guy.**

Over five Hitler avatars! Gee, Frankie....um...thanks.**

It's like being on Star Search...deliver a sub-par performance, and the panel of judges might only give you two and a half Hitler avatars.

Frederick William I

2003-05-14 07:16 | User Profile

Originally posted by il ragno@May 14 2003, 04:47 Aside to FW: my "solution"? Dunno, but if it's not wildly populist in nature, it doesn't have a chance. We are not in any position to circumvent the beer hall. No paleo will ever be allowed to participate fully in the political process: any such candidates will be restricted to symbolic victories and crushing defeats a la Buchanan. The True Right must force itself into the process through a massive grass-roots groundswell, yet none of that will even be feasible without a galvanizing, charismatic figure to act as the lightning-rod. OK, here's where I'm confused. Franco loves what you have to say and thinks its the perfect answer. But it seems to me, by advocating these "beerhall" type activities with the "galvanizing, charismatic figure" (forget the lighting rod stuff though, you brave aryan warrior type guys will have to do your own dirty work, not get someone else to take the heat for you), it appears you're running right back intto that old Nazi regalia type stuff, which was roundly criticized not only by Kurtz, AntiYuppie, and Hugh Lincoln, but by Triskelon. **The costume freaks you mention have nothing to do with racialism as they are just hateful morons. I really don't see the point in talking about them as they are very small and incapable of effective action........

I second, third, fourth and fifth that. Unfortunately, we have to proceed with our silly baggage, because there's simply no way of getting rid of the costume-store Nazis. I have advocated that NA ban swastikas from rallies, but log on to the Resistance site and you'll see plenty of that stuff. I'm not saying they should nix it, because rebellious teens might dig it, but it does create problems for an organization that wants to attract normal White people.

[url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=7795]The Bunker Mentality of WNs, Useless idiots[/url]**

Now it may or may not not be clear to you that this is what you are striving for, but it certainly sees so to me. Beerhall politics with a charismatic figure were what Nazi regalia and types of organization were all about, and it seems redundant to try and reinvent the wheel. So it doesn't seem just me who's questioning your tactics and saying they're wildly unsuccesful but everybody I mentioned, (although Trisk seems to thinks where the "stuffy manifesto" crowd is going is equally doomed to failure). I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just pointing out that an awful lot of opinion on this forum seems to strongly reject you're thinking and the path you've chosen, although you seem slow to understand that. As long as you don't recognize and respond to the critics of your positions here, you aren't accomplishing anything here except generating bandwidth.

il ragno

2003-05-14 07:32 | User Profile

But it seems to me, by advocating these "beerhall" type activities with the "galvanizing, charismatic figure" (forget the lighting rod stuff though, you brave aryan warrior type guys will have to do your own dirty work, not get someone else to take the heat for you), it appears you're running right back intto that old Nazi regalia type stuff, which was roundly criticized not only by Kurtz, AntiYuppie, and Hugh Lincoln, but by Triskelon.

I'm starting to wonder if I might not save valuable time by working in a personal attack in every response to you; in anticipation of the one that seems to be always heading my way.

Granted I don't have my black bag with me but it appears to me you are suffering from Hitlertosis, a condition marked by the sufferer seeing Nazis everywhere. I recommend hot poultices and pernod.

Frederick William I

2003-05-14 07:40 | User Profile

Originally posted by il ragno@May 14 2003, 07:32 Granted I don't have my black bag with me but it appears to me you are suffering from Hitlertosis, a condition marked by the sufferer seeing Nazis everywhere. I recommend hot poultices and pernod.

So you're going to give back those 6 hitler emocions your friend Franco gave your post on beerhall tactics and charismatic personalities as undeserved? He will be SO disappointed in you. :rolleyes:

Seriously, I pointed out the obvious and inevitable logic. If you had something else in mind, spell it out for me.

MadScienceType

2003-05-14 20:02 | User Profile

The political parties are wedded together and undergo a little domestic violence every couple of years to see who gets to control the purse strings, nothing more. When a third party steps in, they both forget their little squabbles long enough to utterly crush the interloper. IR is right, no paleo candiate will ever be allowed to participate beyond window dressing. More simply, if voting changed anything it would be made illegal.

In that sense, what's wrong with beerhall, or if you prefer, tavern, tactics? Intellectualism goes nowhere without the muscle to back it up. If you'll recall, the American revolution relied heavily on tavern tactics in its earlier stages. I sense a whiff of elitism around these parts, which is a real shame because the working-class white is "where it's at." They've lost the most in our new-and-improved service sector economy and have a good deal of horse sense to boot, unlike many more educated folks, who can rationalize 1000s of reasons why that which walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck is actually a rhinocerous. Having spent time amongst PhDs and rednecks, I prefer the latter. The problem is, salt of the earth types tend to be honest and therefore overly credulous. They'll take a Bush at his "conservative" word, then wonder why things get worse, even though one of "ours" is in office. You see this a lot at FR, just before they get banned. Our task is to educate them as to why things are getting worse. If that can be done through the reasoned, moderate approach or through Linder-type agitation, so be it. As I've said before, there's room for both. Yes, I know the hardliners spend a lot of time attacking the "moderates" like Francis, PJB and Taylor, (see the letters section of VNN today for OD's turn at bat!) but so what? Just ignore it. Sticks and stones and all that. Until Linder and six skinheads show up on Sam Francis' porch with rubber hoses and baseball bats, I really don't see what the fuss is about.

I've got to take an extended breather. There are 36,000+ posts here on OD, and sometimes I think that most of them deal with the Linderite-Franciscan feud.

Buh-bye.

il ragno

2003-05-14 20:17 | User Profile

MST, I hope you're only kidding about that 'extended breather'. I think you contribute some invaluable insights.

You're right about the content. What I'm staring to notice is how these donnybrooks start. Somebody, seeking to ennoble themselves and gain brownie points with a little convenient scapegoat-bashing, will make an insulting reference to "brownshirt clowns", "Linderite fools", etc, in threads in which there is previously no mention of them.

I thought at first this was simply self-flattery; but I'm starting to think these things are deliberately intended to provoke a hostile reaction. Like illegally bumping a receiver in the hope that the ref spots only the retaliation.

We call this "baiting", and it's gotten real old around here.

il ragno

2003-05-14 21:23 | User Profile

Kindly explain to me where 'populism' equals 'Nazi rabblerousing' by default.

Is it perverting history to note that even the NS rabblerousers of the 20s were forced to keep pace with the equally-violent, boorish and seditionary Bolshevik 'populists' then inundating Germany? That maintaining one's dignity in the face of an organized hijacking of your homeland guarantees only an orderly transition of power?

Is it heresy against the shades of Kirk and Burnham to point out that the brownshirts in Germany were behaving very badly on behalf of Germany and not Russia?

But get past that for a minute. Show me one instance where I ever advocated a detail-perfect replication of Nazi Germany in modern America. You can't, because I never have. So then am I wrong in pointing out that this kneejerk linking of grass-roots populism to torchlight rallies and the impromptu whistling of the Horst Wessel Song is the cheapest kind of intellectually-bankrupt Nazi-baiting? I notice near-unanimity here on the issue of malign Jewish influence in the West. So is the bone of contention that the true paleo position is rectifying this situation by steadfastly refusing to publicly address this reality in any but the most coded terms? If so, you guys will be eating George Lincoln Rockwell's dust. The easiest way to not drive people away, after all, is to never say anything that might even potentially offend or disturb them. We already have two parties that have that approach well-covered.

I'm withdrawing from this thread because enough is enough already. I just want to point out to you oh-so-principled, sipping-tea-out-of-a-glass anti-Nazi conservatives that if any of your OD posts on any topic other than Alex Linder were ever to see print in a mainstream publication, you would be denounced as Nazis and racists. For all the pains you take in disassociating yourselves from the 'rabble', you'd be shoved right back in here with us. As would 'racist' Burnham and 'anti-Semite' Kirk. All of your protests of 'differences in degree' would fall on the deaf ears of the real rabble as they lock the door behind you.

seq

2003-05-15 00:12 | User Profile

MadScienceType:

There are 36,000+ posts here on OD, and sometimes I think that most of them deal with the Linderite-Franciscan feud.

Or that wholly irrelevant, immaterial, endlessly repetitious examination of the red herring Indian supremacy vs. Indian inferiority non-issue.

Genug bereits!