← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · PaleoconAvatar
Thread ID: 7194 | Posts: 24 | Started: 2003-06-07
2003-06-07 06:49 | User Profile
Forgive the self-congratulatory indulgence, but I had to share. For those of you from the old SFoF, you'll recall that "Leo" once indicated he was quite irritated that racialist elements were making inroads, as he potentially saw it, into conservatism and hence "the mainstream." It would seem that our FR friend Cachelot continues the tradition of opposing the paleocon impulse in cyber fora.
In the post quoted below, you'll find that she's cited me, specifically because of my choice of screen name that uses the word "paleocon." She's mentioned it before, too, but now that she's done it again, I can see it really burns her. And I find great satisfaction in that! :lol:
My rule is that when enemies don't like something I'm doing, I do it more. I guess I'll have to "self-proclaim" my paleodom yet louder and more often now.
**To: JohnGalt
Because I am being forced to buy the bullets.
Well, actually you're not but that's neither here nor there.
Now you are losing me, completely. Can you site a source to this line of thinking so I can see an example in order to respond accordinly?
Unfortunately, I can. Go to that premier libertarian forum, LibertyForum, and observe it for a while. You will see that its owner pushes more or less that same line, and that the place is what you might call "an unregulated commons". However, there is a mechanism for censorship in place which is pure mob rule - the effect of which is that all posters on that board who are not outspoken antisemites have their posts hidden so that a viewer will have to take extra steps to see them.
Do you even know what an Old Right paleo-libertarian is?
Oh yes, I have seen more self-proclaimed "paleos" than you can shake a stick at. More than I care to see, actually. If you look up the place I mentioned, you'll find tons of them. Start with "paleocon-avatar".
211 posted on 06/06/2003 3:38 PM EDT by Cachelot (~ In waters near you ~) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] from: [url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/924265/posts?page=211#211]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/9...ts?page=211#211[/url]**
2003-06-07 08:44 | User Profile
...makes you wonder if Cachelot is on LF, and under what handle
2003-06-07 22:22 | User Profile
Well [coming at this topic from a different angle], the term paleocon is kinda confusing anyway.
Some paleos are racist, but some are not. Many paleos are merely political, i.e. focusing 99% of their energy on "political" topics rather than on racial topics. [Just read some of the OD posts about very non-racial things]. That has always bugged me about paleos. <_<
Why do the "hard-core paleos" [you know who] not just jump into the WN camp completely and get it over with? Why not say, "OK, I am really a WN even though I was hanging out with Buchananites much of the time?" WNs could gain thousands of good helpmates if many paleos 'made the jump.' 'Course, if'n that happened, Tex would pull his hair out -- many of his posters would no longer be polite paleos....[giggle]
2003-06-07 23:02 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@Jun 7 2003, 18:22 Well [coming at this topic from a different angle], the term paleocon is kinda confusing anyway.
The term implicitly points toward the machinations of the Jew, since paleos exist as a reaction to the Jewish hijacking of the conservative movement (a.k.a. the neocons of Irving and Bill Kristol and the like). It is therefore a species of political distinction of which you should approve.
**Some paleos are racist, but some are not. Many paleos are merely political, i.e. focusing 99% of their energy on "political" topics rather than on racial topics. [Just read some of the OD posts about very non-racial things]. That has always bugged me about paleos. <_< **
Some self-identified "White Nationalists" are "anti-Semitic," but some are not. Many WNs are merely political, i.e. focusing 99% of their energy on surface-level "single-issue" topics that include affirmative action or forced busing--they don't "drill down" far enough to see the whole picture of "racial idealism." Is the existence of the philo-Semitic branch of WN, or the existence of the WNs who define everything in terms of politically opposing the Blacks and the NAACP, the fault of the anti-Semitic or more ideologically comprehensive branches?
Why do the "hard-core paleos" [you know who] not just jump into the WN camp completely and get it over with? Why not say, "OK, I am really a WN even though I was hanging out with Buchananites much of the time?" WNs could gain thousands of good helpmates if many paleos 'made the jump.' 'Course, if'n that happened, Tex would pull his hair out -- many of his posters would no longer be polite paleos....[giggle]
They're already in the WN camp by default, but for some reason you just don't see that or accept it, and are thus preaching to the choir. Anyone who self-identified as "conservative" prior to the Second World War or so would generally be considered a "racist" and "anti-Semite" by today's standards. This is why back then there was no need to explicitly have an ideology called "White Nationalism," since it was already taken as a given. It would be as redundant as constantly reminding people that the sky is blue on clear days. Then again, I've noted that you have quite a high tolerance for redundancy.
In fact, I have long suspected that White Nationalism is not an independent, stand-alone ideology, but rather a subset of paleoconservatism, since WN only speaks to one narrow (albeit central as well as holistic/interconnected) issue area (race). WN is not inherently equipped to offer positions on other issues arising from the social, cultural, or economic realms. [And it is important to keep in mind that White Nationalism is not necessarily the same animal as National Socialism]. To the extent that WN comments on say, trade policy or foreign policy, WN surreptitiously borrows from the paleoconservative heritage.
If people are going to take you/us seriously, you/we have to offer a political program that presents alternatives to the status quo on the major issues of the day. The twin Racial and Jewish Problems that the West faces are pressing, mortal problems, but you/we can't just be a one-(or two)-note-Johnny. It is in our strategic interest, as partisans of the Occidental Cause, to offer variety and breadth and depth to the topics and issues we discuss. It lends an image of sophistication and "well-roundedness" to us, and helps prevent us from appearing to be easily dismissable obsessive-compulsives.
2003-06-07 23:26 | User Profile
Originally posted by Centinel@Jun 7 2003, 04:44 ** ...makes you wonder if Cachelot is on LF, and under what handle **
From what I've seen in the past, she claims not to be a poster but just a lurker. She's so obsessive I doubt she could keep her composure if she did try to post, so she'd be "outed." She's a very meticulous reader, though, and compiles all kinds of links and names and quotes. Kinda scary. She's got my real name, etc., as a result of her web scouring work.
2003-06-08 00:18 | User Profile
** Paleoconavatar wrote:
Then again, I've noted that you have quite a high tolerance for redundancy. **
Yep. Ya learn by hearing something a lot. How do you think the stupid goyim -- e.g. Debbie ShopsALot in Topeka, Kansas -- learned about "6 million Jews being gassed" in Poland? By hearing it weekly. Same idea.
Uncle Franco is un-brainwashing the stooges. A labor of love, itz...
2003-06-08 00:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@Jun 7 2003, 20:18 **> ** Paleoconavatar wrote:
Then again, I've noted that you have quite a high tolerance for redundancy. **
Yep. Ya learn by hearing something a lot. How do you think the stupid goyim -- e.g. Debbie ShopsALot in Topeka, Kansas -- learned about "6 million Jews being gassed" in Poland? By hearing it weekly. Same idea.
Uncle Franco is un-brainwashing the stooges. A labor of love, itz...**
There's truth to that, but even the System introduces an element of variation and art atop the basic core set of messages.
The real question is this: how many Debbie ShopsALots are there here at Original Dissent? Do you see a distinction between the usual Jew-dazed goyim out there in AmeriKwa and the posters [u]here[/u], who you have to admit are quite savvy about these sorts of issues. Is "simple repetition" the right method for this particular audience? No doubt you've noticed that some of the OD posters here have become exasperated with the lack of "variation and art" in some of your posts? Is it necessary to speak to them in the same voice as you do the Debbie ShopsALots?
2003-06-08 00:44 | User Profile
In fact, I have long suspected that White Nationalism is not an independent, stand-alone ideology, but rather a subset of paleoconservatism, since WN only speaks to one narrow (albeit central as well as holistic/interconnected) issue area (race). WN is not inherently equipped to offer positions on other issues arising from the social, cultural, or economic realms. [And it is important to keep in mind that White Nationalism is not necessarily the same animal as National Socialism]. To the extent that WN comments on say, trade policy or foreign policy, WN surreptitiously borrows from the paleoconservative heritage. Surely that cannot be right. I think you are projecting your own viewpoint on to the White Nationalist phenomenon as a whole. I know too many WN types who do not fit into the paleocon type for your statement to be true.
WN's tend to assume their own political agendas are also the WN agenda. Seems to me that white racial, cultural, and national survival are the WN agenda, and any other considerations are matters distinctly open for debate within a larger WN movement. To paraphrase NeoNietzsche, insisting on ideological purity by "moralizing over forms of government" is part of our problem, not our solution.
Once upon a time the tiny WN community was pretty much represented only by National Socialists, in that the more traditional conservative types were still in denial about race, the Jews, and/or still devoted to more strictly traditionalist or regionalist fixations that did not rise to the level of WN.
Just as it is horribly wrong to restrict the WN vision to National Socialism, so it is wrong to restrict it to paleoconservativism, unless you want WN to remain a subset of a tiny minority political position (which is what paleoconservatism, and constitutionalism, and paleolibertarianism, and all the other "purist" positions who spend their time "moralizing over forms of government" are).
Even someone as fairly paleocon-friendly as Yggdrasil does not see WN as a subset of any other ideology, and he certainly sees WN as capable of addressing any and all issues - economic, cultural, political, etc.
Now, my own personal prejudice is that once you get a large enough coalition of whites unified (at least in the USA), you may very well end up at something like a paleoconservative position, but then again, you may not. If most whites want a social welfare state for whites only, that is still a better situation than what we have now, and we should not hold the entire WN movement hostage to our purist demands about what a "correct" form of government "should" look like.
Survival first, "purism" second.
2003-06-08 01:06 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Jun 7 2003, 16:26 ** she claims not to be a poster but just a lurker. She's so obsessive I doubt she could keep her composure if she did try to post, so she'd be "outed." **
There quite a few obsessive psycho joofreaks on LF to choose from :lol:
2003-06-08 01:07 | User Profile
Originally posted by grep14w@Jun 7 2003, 20:44 Surely that cannot be right. I think you are projecting your own viewpoint on to the White Nationalist phenomenon as a whole. I know too many WN types who do not fit into the paleocon type for your statement to be true.
Perhaps I do my share of projection, but no more than anyone else, including Franco and yourself. I assume that the WN types you refer to would be those who come to the table with essentially "liberal" positions who are also "racially aware?" If so, the political spectrum is such that the two are fast becoming indistinguishable from one another. The real divisions are no longer "Right" and "Left," but "nationalist" versus "globalist/multiracialist."
You've mentioned varying attitudes toward the welfare state, but you should be careful not to confuse paleoconservatives with paleolibertarians in this regard. Our fellow OD poster AntiYuppie has expressed sentiments in favor of a socioeconomic structure that serves the interests of working and middle class Americans, and rejects the plutocratic, predatory associations too often attributed to "mainstream" conservatism and libertarianism. I agree with him, as do many others here.
WN's tend to assume their own political agendas are also the WN agenda. Seems to me that white racial, cultural, and national survival are the WN agenda, and any other considerations are matters distinctly open for debate within a larger WN movement. To paraphrase NeoNietzsche, insisting on ideological purity by "moralizing over forms of government" is part of our problem, not our solution.
Agreed wholeheartedly. Of course, certain paths are more conducive to promoting that survival than others. And those of course remain open to debate, as well.
Just as it is horribly wrong to restrict the WN vision to National Socialism, so it is wrong to restrict it to paleoconservativism, unless you want WN to remain a subset of a tiny minority political position (which is what paleoconservatism, and constitutionalism, and paleolibertarianism, and all the other "purist" positions who spend their time "moralizing over forms of government" are).
Again, you'll find that the paleoconservative currents at this forum pretty much recognize that the Constitution is a dead letter. No one, to my knowledge, strongly fetishizes particular visions of "forms of government." I've gotten the impression that most of us are pretty pragmatic and are looking for something that will get the job done.
Even someone as fairly paleocon-friendly as Yggdrasil does not see WN as a subset of any other ideology, and he certainly sees WN as capable of addressing any and all issues - economic, cultural, political, etc.
The devil is in the details as to what "addressing" means. WN is essentially content-free in this regard--what I mean by this is that it only suggests a direction or provides an imperative, something close to "No policy shall endanger the survival and integrity of the White race." That's a guideline, not a policy. For actual policy positions, most WNs resort to paleocon positions on things like foreign trade, where they'll back tariffs and other restrictions on imports in order to prevent Whites from becoming overly dependent on foreign (read: non-White) suppliers, since dependency equates to vulnerability. This does not mean that only trade protectionists can be WNs. [ ...but it's logical and it helps, :lol: ].
If most whites want a social welfare state for whites only, that is still a better situation than what we have now, and we should not hold the entire WN movement hostage to our purist demands about what a "correct" form of government "should" look like.
Absolutely agree with you. And as I've said, I've noted a strong pro-social welfare current in paleo circles, whether that's motivated by true concern or just good politics is for them to know, but (almost) everyone agrees that the situation you describe is infinitely preferable to the status quo.
Survival first, "purism" second.
Absolutely agreed again. In fact, you've taken my post out of its context--it was I who was arguing this point with Franco in favor of variation. Franco is the "purist" here.
2003-06-08 01:08 | User Profile
Originally posted by grep14w@Jun 7 2003, 17:44 ** If most whites want a social welfare state for whites only, that is still a better situation than what we have now **
I'll take Sweden over Haiti any day
2003-06-08 01:19 | User Profile
That's a good one Madrussian. True, true.
Most whites are too dynamic to have the majority of their population on the dole. The same can't be said for blacks and browns once it's available. Even a lot of these people of color who did work, fall of the work wagon when the freebies are available. On the other hand, whites generally seem like they have to be doing something constructive or beneficial. That's why most whites work, why whites invent so much, why they create. Whites are more dynamic.
2003-06-08 01:56 | User Profile
**By the way, what makes you think Cachelot is a "she"? I haven't followed its posts that closely, but I can't recall it ever giving any personal info (apart from a previous incarnation as HBendor who claimed to have been an IDF medic or something). **
I remember hbendor from the JewsMax forum....poster never revealed his/her sex to my knowledge
2003-06-08 02:03 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jun 7 2003, 21:30 > Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Jun 7 2003, 23:26 ** > Originally posted by Centinel@Jun 7 2003, 04:44 ** ...makes you wonder if Cachelot is on LF, and under what handle **
From what I've seen in the past, she claims not to be a poster but just a lurker. She's so obsessive I doubt she could keep her composure if she did try to post, so she'd be "outed." She's a very meticulous reader, though, and compiles all kinds of links and names and quotes. Kinda scary. She's got my real name, etc., as a result of her web scouring work. **
There's no question in my mind that Cachelot is with the ADL. The ADL's database is by all accounts comparable to the FBI's. I recall in an interview or an article Noam Chomsky recollected finding out (through a "leak" I guess) about the ADL's thick dossier on him, containing every controversial (by ADL standards) remark he ever made verbatim, all carefully annotated. I'm sure that the ADL has a file on most of the more visible posters on various "questionable" internet forums.
They first started patrolling FR full force around 2000, and in the course of one year completely coopted the forum. Now they're monitoring and disrupting other forums (LF, SFOF, OD) which they have no hope of taking control of. Chachelot is simply the most visible of the lot, others are more subtle, indicating their agenda through innuendo or disguising themselves as something entirely different.
By the way, what makes you think Cachelot is a "she"? I haven't followed its posts that closely, but I can't recall it ever giving any personal info (apart from a previous incarnation as HBendor who claimed to have been an IDF medic or something).**
If Cachelot is ADL, then my opinion of that organization is even lower now. I'd at least thought that the ADL types would have some degree of professionalism and have its operatives just collect info, but not actually post the sorts of rants Cachelot does. Cachelot obsesses over LibertyForum, mentioning it in every other post even when it's totally irrelevant, and Cachelot sees Nazis everywhere. How does the ADL manage to hold themselves together when they try to appear like sober analysts when they act as advisors to the FBI, if their ranks are made up of nuts like Cachelot? Maybe it's just the anonymity of the Internet that lets Cachelot go wild.
I'd gotten the impression she's a she because she's made statements that appeared she keeps house with "Nix_2" and she uses the male pronoun for Nix_2, and I assume it's a hetero relationship. I think you and some other ODers know Nix_2, so maybe you have the missing piece of the puzzle and I might have gotten it wrong if it doesn't add up. I'd always gotten the female vibe from Cachelot. I think I saw people at LF call her a she, too.
2003-06-08 02:19 | User Profile
** PaleoconAvatar wrote:
No doubt you've noticed that some of the OD posters here have become exasperated with the lack of "variation and art" in some of your posts? Is it necessary to speak to them in the same voice as you do the Debbie ShopsALots? **
Well, there are a lot of both lurkers and mild paleos at OD. My message seeps into their brains.
Plus, my 1-2 punch of a) simplicity and b] consistency make a dynamite combo, if'n you ask me... :D
There was a U.S. Army training manual re-written in the 1970s. I saw both the before-and-after versions. All of the troops said that the new/simpler version was the clearest and easiest to grasp. The guy who re-wrote it also created 'how-to' books for civilians, so that is how I learned of it. Keep it simple and plain, I say, and more people will learn...
2003-06-08 02:47 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@Jun 8 2003, 02:19 **Well, there are a lot of both lurkers and mild paleos at OD. My message seeps into their brains.
Plus, my 1-2 punch of a) simplicity and b] consistency make a dynamite combo, if'n you ask me... :D **
Sounds to me like a dog barking all night, who asserts his raison de tre because he's nothing better to do.
There was a U.S. Army training manual re-written in the 1970s. I saw both the before-and-after versions. All of the troops said that the new/simpler version was the clearest and easiest to grasp. The guy who re-wrote it also created 'how-to' books for civilians, so that is how I learned of it. Keep it simple and plain, I say, and more people will learn...
Find a group of testosterone driven adolscent army recruits sleeping 4 hours a night and your methods might in a relative sense be more effective.
Even the most basic propagandist knows about varying his message to the audience.
But if you want to be ineffective, that's really perfectly fine with me. Hey, I bet TD could even give the forum aspecial ebonics translator. :afro:
2003-06-08 03:01 | User Profile
Nixie said it was from Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh is swarming with Jews. It always had a lot of them, but due to its low cost of housing and available help due to the two universities and it being a destination for "refugees", more seem to be moving in. Especially the orthodox freaks with their huge families.
To me, they represent just a typical militant Jew, who by virtue of living in a large community where they are talking to one another and are more insulated and are getting steeped in their hate, get bold enough to drop the mask.
2003-06-08 10:19 | User Profile
**Some paleos are racist, but some are not. Many paleos are merely political, i.e. focusing 99% of their energy on "political" topics rather than on racial topics. [Just read some of the OD posts about very non-racial things]. That has always bugged me about paleos. **
The world is complex. Not as complex as the power Zionists would have you believe, of course, but far more complex than your one-note ideology. What 'bugs' you, I think, is that too many of us understand that to revert to childhood and naivete. Little kids like food that is very salty or very sweet. Adults tend to have more sophisticated palates....and part of the reason why is that reality has a chilling wake-up call in store for people whose diets are mainly composed of salt and sugar.
'Course, if'n that happened, Tex would pull his hair out -- many of his posters would no longer be polite paleos....[giggle]
Could you possibly lose the "[giggle]"? I can live with the Hitler smilies just fine, but the "[giggle]"s and the "[tee hee]"s are as gay as tangerines.
2003-06-08 21:45 | User Profile
If Cachelot did not exist, then I think we'd have to invent him. The guy's a total caricature who thinks I'm a Farrakhan supporting black nationalist.
:blink: :afro:
2003-06-09 07:23 | User Profile
**Perhaps I do my share of projection, but no more than anyone else, including Franco and yourself. I assume that the WN types you refer to would be those who come to the table with essentially "liberal" positions who are also "racially aware?" If so, the political spectrum is such that the two are fast becoming indistinguishable from one another. The real divisions are no longer "Right" and "Left," but "nationalist" versus "globalist/multiracialist." ** No, that is not what I meant (WN who are not paleos do not tend to be liberals, either), although you are correct about realignments.
"Liberal" is almost as meaningless a word as "conservative" or "socialist" or "libertarian" or even, dare I say it, paleoconservative. I was thinking more of typical whites who have no particular grievance with the state as such, or with the federal government post-1865 as such, or with an activist, centralized state as such. They have rather more immediate and pressing needs, not rooted in purely ideological concerns. There's a host of issues besides those issues that conservatives or paleoconservatives tend to obsess over. Most of them simply do not speak to the real needs or anxieties of ordinary white Americans. "Liberal" and "conservative" have nothing to do with it.
This problem is acute in all conservatives who play footsy with the idea of white nationalism (however disguised) from time to time. They start to move in a direction that might actually redraw the existing political map in terms favorable towards white nationalism, but then they either receive criticism from the purists, or they have their own twinges of "orthodoxy" - on "free trade" or taxes or "minimal" government, or what have you - and they retreat, leaving the potential white nationalist middle and working classes, and the "middle American revolutionaries" leaderless, directionless, and unrepresented within the political system.
I disagree that WN is "content free". The direction of WN within the existing political situation will logically supply plenty of "content", some of which will do violence to paleo- and other conservative sacred cows. The tendency to see WN as lacking in fundamental values is caused by an ideological fixation for "ideal rules" that mascarade as "principles" but in fact act as a brake on any real political progress. It's the talking game that always finds fault with real politics, and thus gives the game away to those who actually understand politics, because no politics can ever measure up to the ideal "principles".
Put another way, it is not WN that is a subset of paleoconservativism, but the reverse. And this will become more and more so as identity politics come to overshadow mere ideological gameplay about the "size" of government, "federalism", "liberty", free trade, etc. Paleos who flee from WN will go over to the dark side or become irrelevent; paleos who acknowledge the reality that WN reflects will become a vital part of a much larger ideological grouping. They can shape the direction of WN but won't be able to dictate its future.
The problem for WN today (and WN is still more "potential" than actual) is similar to the confusion that leftist ideologues had when trying to evaluate fascism and national socialism; they complained that these movements were "lacking in ideological coherency" and were "merely opportunist", etc. A similar thing is going on with libertarian and paleocon incomprehension of WN. WN isn't an ideology; it is a movement driven by events, that is to say, driven by reality rather than by fancy or whim (which is what ideology is). WN is evolutionary psychology in action. It can't be corraled by ideological definitions or categorizations. It will either not be, or it will be what it is, and nothing else.
2003-06-10 10:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Jun 7 2003, 19:07 ** The devil is in the details as to what "addressing" means. WN is essentially content-free in this regard--what I mean by this is that it only suggests a direction or provides an imperative, something close to "No policy shall endanger the survival and integrity of the White race." That's a guideline, not a policy. For actual policy positions, most WNs resort to paleocon positions on things like foreign trade, where they'll back tariffs and other restrictions on imports in order to prevent Whites from becoming overly dependent on foreign (read: non-White) suppliers, since dependency equates to vulnerability. This does not mean that only trade protectionists can be WNs. [ ...but it's logical and it helps, :lol: ]. **
That's where the two groups - WNs and paleocons, if they are in fact two distinct groups can, or maybe even must, work together. The "real" WNs, by which I mean those who openly and fully call themselves White Nationalists, have the vision of where we all need to be as a race. The paleos focus more on the political and social ideologies that we need to get to that state where the WNs talk about getting.
2003-06-12 14:10 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jun 10 2003, 15:36 * ** One thing which does strike me is the fact that even paleoconservatives who avoid race as an issue are labelled "racist" by neocons and the left. The reason, of course, is that the paleoconservative defense of traditional western culture and institutions is perceived as implicitly* racist.
**
Race is a difficult thing for a lot of people, even some of the paleoconservative types, to face. I think we need both types: both the strongly White Nationalist folk who will tackle the race issues head-on, as well as the paleocons who handle the same issues but from a slightly different perspective.
2003-06-18 04:05 | User Profile
AntiYuppie:
FR's "Cachelot" is the same guy as One Particular Harbor (or "oph," on the LibertyForum.org board). He got booted from FR and then signed back in under another nom de plume.
FYI.
TBF
2003-06-18 17:30 | User Profile
Here it seems we are going back over the matter of what to conserve. Racialism is genuine conservatism because it seeks preserve the race which created and makes possible Occidental civilizations and is able to provide the societal conditions in which said civilizations can thrive. What Americans commonly call Paleo-cons are, with very few exceptions, not racialists although like anyone else that is not effusive about the virtues of our destruction they are labeled a evil race haters by the propasphere. I and others have pointed out at length the fact that Buchanan and other mainstream paleos are not racialists because they believe the lie that culture exists independently of race and they refuse to fundamentally reject multi-racialism and embrace separatism as did all pre-war conservatives. A rather extensive debate about my observations can be found here: [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=3845&hl=]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...wtopic=3845&hl=[/url] The upshot of which is that what now passes for mainstream paleo-conservatism is dubiously conservative.
As to the fairly redundant label found only in America (i.e. WN) only a little needs be said. It is true that American WN is largely idea free and that no effective racialist group exists in the states in part because they have no ideological foundation. Genuine Eurocentric movements do indeed have a very rich and varied range of ideological subsets and schools and all of them have extensive canons that are largely unknown in the states to self decleared racialists and conservatives a like.
As to National Socialism it seems that making Americans realize that a) the Hollywood portrayal is grossly accurate and B) that the NSDAP example of 33-45 was only a segment of a much larger tradition is extremely challenging. Personally, I don't dwell on the NSDAP example much as other tendencies within NS (for me, primarily non German ones) hold much more promise for modern activism inspite of the virtues of that regime.
The comment "Survival first, "purism" second" is true but rather lacking clarity. We must first delineate what exactly we mean by white so as not to have racialism gutted of meaning as TR is attempting to do. We must also consider what kind of society we want for our grandchildren and that means getting a better idea of what went wrong with our nations that allowed them to be gutted by aliens. Lastly, thought must be given to what forms of institutions and economic doctrines are compatible with a racially constructed society without regard to cows sacred to the establishment that we wish to reject.
PCA. > In fact, I have long suspected that White Nationalism is not an independent, stand-alone ideology, but rather a subset of paleoconservatism, since WN only speaks to one narrow (albeit central as well as holistic/interconnected) issue area (race). WN is not inherently equipped to offer positions on other issues arising from the social, cultural, or economic realms. [And it is important to keep in mind that White Nationalism is not necessarily the same animal as National Socialism]. To the extent that WN comments on say, trade policy or foreign policy, WN surreptitiously borrows from the paleoconservative heritage. >
grep14w > Surely that cannot be right. I think you are projecting your own viewpoint on to the White Nationalist phenomenon as a whole. I know too many WN types who do not fit into the paleocon type for your statement to be true.
WN's tend to assume their own political agendas are also the WN agenda. Seems to me that white racial, cultural, and national survival are the WN agenda, and any other considerations are matters distinctly open for debate within a larger WN movement. To paraphrase NeoNietzsche, insisting on ideological purity by "moralizing over forms of government" is part of our problem, not our solution.
Once upon a time the tiny WN community was pretty much represented only by National Socialists, in that the more traditional conservative types were still in denial about race, the Jews, and/or still devoted to more strictly traditionalist or regionalist fixations that did not rise to the level of WN.
Just as it is horribly wrong to restrict the WN vision to National Socialism, so it is wrong to restrict it to paleoconservativism, unless you want WN to remain a subset of a tiny minority political position (which is what paleoconservatism, and constitutionalism, and paleolibertarianism, and all the other "purist" positions who spend their time "moralizing over forms of government" are).
Even someone as fairly paleocon-friendly as Yggdrasil does not see WN as a subset of any other ideology, and he certainly sees WN as capable of addressing any and all issues - economic, cultural, political, etc.
Now, my own personal prejudice is that once you get a large enough coalition of whites unified (at least in the USA), you may very well end up at something like a paleoconservative position, but then again, you may not. If most whites want a social welfare state for whites only, that is still a better situation than what we have now, and we should not hold the entire WN movement hostage to our purist demands about what a "correct" form of government "should" look like.
Survival first, "purism" second. >