← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 7466 | Posts: 46 | Started: 2003-06-18
2003-06-18 22:06 | User Profile
[url=http://www.americafirstparty.org/]America First Party[/url]
The central focus of the America First Party is to put America and all Americans First. We will elect candidates who will restore morality, ethics, and common sense to public service. We will return our Constitution to its proper place in our Republic.
2003-06-18 23:52 | User Profile
Is it Jew-last?
We already have misleadingly-named AmRen.
2003-06-19 14:38 | User Profile
The central focus of the America First Party is to put America and all Americans First.
(My emphasis)
The only problem I see is that they don't define their concept of "American" in any way. Any preggo border jumper that manages to present herself to a hospital and squeeze has just created another "American" for us to feed and care for. That's even in the Constitution they want to return to prominence! Or at least it was creatively found in the Constitution by our great legal scholars, just as they found that the right to abortion must have been foremost on the Founders' minds back in the 18th century.
Maybe they do mean Euro-Americans and all the talk is in the same vein as other "code words" like Likudnik, etc.
But I won't hold my breath.
2003-06-19 18:27 | User Profile
Looking over the site it seems that have very little to say about issues critical to Occidentals in America and nothing at all about how they plan to become a force in post-American politics or culture. They also say nothing substantive about ideology and public policy. In the end, it doesn't look to be a source of much hope and given the AmRen example I am very leery till proven else wise.
2003-06-19 18:33 | User Profile
triskelion,
I bet if Jews start attacking the America First party, those will quickly proclaim that they aren't anti-semites or racists.
2003-06-19 18:56 | User Profile
I bet if Jews start attacking the America First party, those will quickly proclaim that they aren't anti-semites or racists.
You've hit upon what insider sources tell me is currently a raging debate among the party's leadership.
2003-06-19 19:07 | User Profile
I don't often quote Noam Chomsky, but the other day on c-span he described American politics as "a shadow cast by big business."
The American Firsters are playing a sucker's game. One post here has more value than 100 hours laboring with these folks.
If you want political activity, take part in an Ernst Zundel demonstration. See ihr.org.
2003-06-19 19:08 | User Profile
And so another opportunity for a truly America First party is potentially wasted. Can whites possess at least a fraction of single-minded ethnocentrism and solidarity of that of the Jews? Can they put themselves first, and Jews last?
2003-06-20 02:47 | User Profile
The America First Party will be like EAIF [European American Issues Forum]: "Jews? What's a Jew? Where? When? Never heard of them..."
Those Who Don't Name The Jew Shall Die By The Jew [tm, unknown author]. So, what's it gonna be?
"Say, is this bean dip for anyone? Mmmmm..." [the usual response of paleos to that question] :D
2003-06-20 04:43 | User Profile
I think that people should work within the Republican party to try to accomplish white nationalists goals. Although the leadership of the Republican party does not want to talk about race. I think that their are a lot of conservatives who would be welling to talk to a white nationalist about how minorities act collectively to further their own society's advantage at the expense of white people and how white people should act collectively to defend themselves. I think that there are a lot of conservatives that are opposed to affirmative action, immigration, and how America's sponsorship of Israel's terrorism against the palestinians is responsible for the WTC bombing.
2003-06-20 05:14 | User Profile
The GOP is totally controlled by those actively seeking the destruction of what remains of Occidental America. Having any involvement with that party is a total waste of time when that, along with a willingness, to engage in real activism is what is most lacking. In part this is because that genuine conservatism does not exist in the states in any organizational sense. The vast majority of people in the states that use the term conservative to describe themselves are in fact neo-cons and such people are in no sense opponents of multi-racialism. To a lesser extent the same is true of paleo-cons in that complain about the effects of multi-racialism but are totally unwilling to fundamentally reject the multi-racialism that causes the problems they dwell on and are almost to a man totally unwilling to honestly look at the Jewish role in their destruction because they crave acceptance by an anti Occidental establishment which they pretend can be changed back to what it was during the ââ¬Ë50s. This issue was covered very extensively in the "Failure of Paleo Conservatism" thread which you can find in the achieves.
In any case, the GOP is largely irrelevant because the demographic transformation of America from a first to a third world country (rather then nation state) will mean that the neo-cons that completely dominate the party will have made the Republicans into an non entity nationally unless they become even more radically anti-white. Frankly, the only hope that I see is for American Eurocentrics to get serious about forming a viable activist cadre with a well developed ideology that provides a genuine alternative set of solutions to your nation's problems. If this happens, a very dubious prospect, the current order will eventually suffer a systemic crisis as a result of the racial and financial disintegration wrought by multi-racialism and globalism giving opponents of the current regime a realistic opportunity to make a bid for power. If you are interested in specifics I direct you towards the works of Mosca and Pareto with special emphasis upon their theory of elite degeneration and renewal as a catalyst for revolutionary change.
2003-06-20 06:51 | User Profile
To a lesser extent the same is true of paleo-cons in that complain about the effects of multi-racialism but are totally unwilling to fundamentally reject the multi-racialism that causes the problems they dwell on and are almost to a man totally unwilling to honestly look at the Jewish role in their destruction because they crave acceptance by an anti Occidental establishment which they pretend can be changed back to what it was during the ?50s. This issue was covered very extensively in the "Failure of Paleo Conservatism" thread which you can find in the achieves.
If anything was covered extensively on that thread, ([url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=3147]The Failure of Paleoconservatism[/url])which seemed to dance around a few things but never came up with something, I didn't notice it. As far as I could see, the only paleoconservative discussed at any length there was Buchanan. Then as with this above statement of yours all we typically get issome broad-brush statements without too much definition or clarity. Maybe you intended to get around to something you never did.
In any case, the GOP is largely irrelevant because the demographic transformation of America from a first to a third world country (rather then nation state) will mean that the neo-cons that completely dominate the party will have made the Republicans into an non entity nationally unless they become even more radically anti-white.
No doubt about that.
Frankly, the only hope that I see is for American Eurocentrics to get serious about forming a viable activist cadre with a well developed ideology that provides a genuine alternative set of solutions to your nation's problems. If this happens, a very dubious prospect, the current order will eventually suffer a systemic crisis as a result of the racial and financial disintegration wrought by multi-racialism and globalism giving opponents of the current regime a realistic opportunity to make a bid for power. If you are interested in specifics I direct you towards the works of Mosca and Pareto with special emphasis upon their theory of elite degeneration and renewal as a catalyst for revolutionary change.
The idea of an activist cadre certainly seems necessary in any real plan for change. Especially when the questions being addressed are so fundamental re:
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. ****
2003-06-20 07:13 | User Profile
Looking over the site it seems that have very little to say about issues critical to Occidentals in America and nothing at all about how they plan to become a force in post-American politics or culture. They also say nothing substantive about ideology and public policy. In the end, it doesn't look to be a source of much hope and given the AmRen example I am very leery till proven else wise.
It is true that the platform is not very extensive, but the associations when understood i.a.w. their association with Buchananism are fairly definite. It is not very specific of course, but no movement aspiring or even pretending to aspire to electoral success can be. Specific party platforms are just things your enemies use to beat you over the head.
I know such sounds weasily, but you yourself apparently find some good points in a similar type association with Dansk Folkeparti of Pia KjærsgÃÂ¥rd, re:
**While I have serious differences with the populist, rather then nationalist, Dansk Folkeparti of Pia KjærsgÃÂ¥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.
[url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=3147]The failure of paleoconservatism[/url] **
It certainly seems like the America First Party could ideologically prove to have similar potential if it could somehow achieve a similar level of electoral success. Of course such electoral success, which I think you referred to, requires a ceertain level of political expertise, which I think you referred to as obtaining through study under false pretenses at such neocon type political institutions if I'm not mistaken.
2003-06-20 11:59 | User Profile
I was surprised to not find the usual "we do not discriminate on the basis of......." statement. They're awash in yankee idealism though, so I suspect they proudly represent ALL Amuurricahns, regardless of.....
**[url=http://www.americafirstparty.org/docs/principles.shtml]http://www.americafirstparty.org/docs/principles.shtml[/url]
ENCOURAGE THE TRADITIONAL VALUES OF FAITH, FAMILY, AND RESPONSIBILITY
Protect and recognize the sanctity of all human life Defend the traditional family unit based on one man and one woman Promote the primacy of parents in the lives and education of their children Respect the free exercise of religion Recognize the Judeo-Christian heritage of our shared values**
But what do I know? I don't have faith in restorers of the Constitution any more. It hasn't been worth a nickel since 1861, and the whole system ought to be officially scrapped, for honesty's sake.
2003-06-20 15:42 | User Profile
They wrote Judeo-Christian in their principles? Faggedaboutit :dung:
2003-06-20 15:54 | User Profile
They wrote Judeo-Christian in their principles? Faggedaboutit :dung:
You aren't acquainted with the general history of this term in Anglo-Saxon parlance. That is the way Christian values have always been described, and attacked, by the left (the Jewish left more than anyone) in America.
Even Franco doesn't usually make this type of mistake :rolleyes: (Although I'm sure he will in time)
2003-06-20 16:07 | User Profile
I am familiar with the current usage of that term and the implications of that.
Prepending Judeo to Christian is going out of your way to appease the zhids. People used to think of America as a white Christian country. Never Judeo-Christian.
2003-06-20 16:23 | User Profile
They wrote Judeo-Christian in their principles? Faggedaboutit* :dung:
You aren't acquainted with the general history of this term in Anglo-Saxon parlance. That is the way Christian values have always been described, and attacked, by the left (the Jewish left more than anyone) in America.
Even Franco doesn't usually make this type of mistake :rolleyes: (Although I'm sure he will in time)**
Always? I see it used much less often by the left than by con-servatives intending to underline their commitment to "tolerance" and "inclusiveness" at all costs. Was the term ever used before the Jewish 20th century?
2003-06-20 16:26 | User Profile
Always? I see it used much less often by the left than by con-servatives intending to underline their commitment to "tolerance" and "inclusiveness" at all costs. Was the term ever used before the Jewish 20th century?
Judeo-Christian is a term in wide usage at Freak Republik. Zhids must feel warm and fuzzy with this deference the goyim are showing to them, without them ever asking for it.
2003-06-20 16:31 | User Profile
Freak Republik <--- Yep, that's what I think of whenever I hear the term.
2003-06-20 16:46 | User Profile
Perhaps FWI overreacted because he thought we attacked the Christian part in Judeo-Christian? :D
Is there an ADL checklist to assess the threat from a web site/organization?
Use term Judeo-Christian, check
Say they are inclusive and non-racist or anti-semitic, check
Don't use the term "white", check
Don't use the term European, check
etc. etc.
2003-06-20 17:02 | User Profile
Always? I see it used much less often by the left than by con-servatives intending to underline their commitment to "tolerance" and "inclusiveness" at all costs. Was the term ever used before the Jewish 20th century?
Nowadays you are sort of right I suppose, it is used more by conservatives, but I remember it as a standard term of derision by 60's radicals.
The etymology of this word does make an interesting study, or even thread, if so inclined. In any event, it has been a common term of usage throughout the twentieth century, although again I do remember you may be right, it was a slight nod to social inclusiveness by mainstream theologians near the start of the twentieth century. It's not just something Falwell or Freakers dreamed up, and has a fairly legitimate theological meaning just from a pure Christian sense, although it is ripe for bastardization by the Noadites et. al..
To be oversensitive and dismiss this term however out of hand has airs of the blacks complaining about usage of the word "niggardly". :afro:
2003-06-20 17:27 | User Profile
FWI, you are being oversensitive to our being oversensitive. :lol:
Doncha think there is a good reason to be sensitive, given the number of organizations being neutered by their being oversensitive to what zhids may think of them, or deciding they can do more by playing dead as far as the Jew question is concerned?
2003-06-20 18:21 | User Profile
Hello FW, it is certainly nice to hear from you as I've seen little about from you lately. It seems we are back to sparing on this old chestnut once again old friend.
If anything was covered extensively on that thread, ( [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=3845&st=20]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...opic=3845&st=20[/url] ) which seemed to dance around a few things but never came up with something, I didn't notice it. >
Considering that you and many others wrote rather extensive comments/critiques about by summation of why the paleo-cons are a non entity it would seem more accurate to say that you did not come to a point of agreement with me nor refute my contentions.
As far as I could see, the only paleoconservative discussed at any length there was Buchanan. >
We covered Buchanan at length at length because in my life time is far and away the most prominent standard bearer for what passes for paleo-conservatism and the only on that has launched a high profile (if dismal) bid for elective office. He also has written a couple of popular books and is a celebrity that most paleo-cons clearly support. His lack of ideological/moral fortitude was demonstrated else where in this forum supporting my contentions.
Then as with this above statement of yours all we typically get issome broad-brush statements without too much definition or clarity. Maybe you intended to get around to something you never did. >
Given that you just complained that too much focus was given to the preeminent paleo-con standard bearer a sentence early you most recent point seems negated. In any case, that thread opened with general criticisms of paleo-cons followed by some supportive comments and some rebuttals which were handled fairly well. As mentioned in that thread, a good deal of coverage to the points raised by my various critics at the polinco thread "a response to my critics at O.D." which got very little attention from the O.D.ers gave a good deal of elaboration to some points raised in the "failure" thread. As for broad brush anyone could note that I did make clear exceptions by pointing out that my criticisms of paleo-cons were not global as they do not apply to you and a few others but rather to the mainstream paleo institutions/figures.
It is true that the platform is not very extensive, but the associations when understood i.a.w. their association with Buchananism are fairly definite. >
As someone I am sure you are familiar with once said "ideas have consequence". The consequence of the A.F.P not having any ideological substance is that they rehash a few vague themes that have not worked for Buchanan. Again, this goes back to the problem that a hazy nostalgia for an idealized past combined with dodging critical issues like the fundamental nature of multi-racialism, socializing institutions being run by aliens, that the current economic order is at odds with social conservatism etc. are a hallmark of mainstream paleo-cons. These limitations, and others, have prevented Buchanan and other paleo-cons from formulating an ideology that is capable of providing public policy prescriptions that are a real alternative to the established order. When combined with an often craven desire for establishment acceptance that one sees in paleo-con publications and leaders, again Buchanan is a clear example of this, the reason for not offering an alternative is that by enlarge they don't want to be one which again goes back to a lack of an ideology.
It is not very specific of course, but no movement aspiring or even pretending to aspire to electoral success can be. Specific party platforms are just things your enemies use to beat you over the head. >
Quite to the contrary. No principled party wishing to go any where in challenging the establishment can expect to do so without saying what exactly they intend to do differently for every single segment of society they wish to appeal to. Bland, content free rhetoric is perfectly fine for establishment parties because they already have a compliant media to do their bidding, vast financial resources, candidates with near totally name recognition and sizable voter support simply by being on the ballot. Those that wish to challenge the current order have none of those things and acting as if they do (i.e. insubstantial ideological foundations/public policy alternatives) can only hope to be viable if they are personality vehicles for a truly charismatic candidate with a clearly defined and localized basis of support such as Thurman in ââ¬Ë48 or Wallace in the ââ¬Ë60s. Of course given that federalism is largely been reduced to a mere vestige of it's former self such victories will have only limited effects upon localized public policies and such gains will evaporate along with what ever progress was made by such an individual as his political fortunes wain. In the end, the charismatic option works only under highly unusual historical conditions when combined with a truly exceptional man whose gains are, even then, transitory.
I know such sounds weasily, but you yourself apparently find some good points in a similar type association with Dansk Folkeparti of Pia KjærsgÃÂ¥rd >
Although the Dansk Folkeparti is only a populist party it has a far more developed ideology then I have seen from any politically active, rather then academic, paleo-con in the states. I should also point out that within that party is a major contingent of genuine racial nationalists (some of whom are active with www.danskforum.dk whose notions get plenty of attention party circles) as well as some organizations that I belong to whom have been active and moderately successful in gradually transforming the party into a nationalist formation. Historical revision (of sane and valid form) is pushed by several successful office holders and supporters of the party which again speaks to the substance of ideas as well as how they are presented in conjunction with policy recommendations. Of course as I and other have pointed out before, the lack of ideological grounding combined with the desire for establishment acceptance would likely nullify any chance for public policy accomplishments by electorally viable paleo-cons should they become electorally viable. The last statement is likely an understatement given the examples of Buchanan's recent capitations that I and others indicated in another thread here which you likely recall but lack the URL of hand.
It certainly seems like the America First Party could ideologically prove to have similar potential if it could somehow achieve a similar level of electoral success. >
As mentioned before. Anyone wishing to be a genuine alternative to the current order must have substance to achieve electoral success.
Of course such electoral success, which I think you referred to, requires a certain level of political expertise, which I think you referred to as obtaining through study under false pretenses at such neocon type political institutions if I'm not mistaken. >
Quite true. If you wish to be electorally viable you need not just a sound ideology and carefully, narrowly focused public policy prescriptions that flow from said foundationalisms but technical skills as well. I believe you refer to my infiltration of a neo-con campaign training school during one of the periods I lived in the states and studied at one university or another (I declined scholarships and government subsidies while doing so) back many years ago. I have no regrets about doing so as I paid the fees required of any other student at the campaign academy and I have put the skills learned to good use supporting racial nationalists of various stripes with substantial success. As the neo-cons are agents of Occidental destruction and, quite frankly, evil I have no reticency about using their institutions to subvert their agenda and encourage others to do so as well provided that one uses only means that are strictly legal. In a similar fashion I support the efforts of those that actively infiltrate and subvert the ultra-left as doing so helps to protect my compatriots and their families from violence. These sentiments may seem shocking to some but the reality is that politics is nothing more then warfare conducted by other means and the stakes are everything that genuine conservatism holds dear. While I would discourage anyone with soiling themselves with many methods used by our enemies for reasons legal, moral and strategic the era of gentlemanly court politics has long been gone and we ignore that reality at our own peril.
2003-06-20 18:45 | User Profile
I recall this bit by FAEM's recently passed on Mr. Franz as being relavant to the AFP. I came upon this piece while looking for another that wrote on the need to destroy the GOP and how to go about doing it. If anyone happens to recall that article I would be delighted if could post it.
Quote: How do we deal with otherwise sensible conservatives...
So far as 'liberal' and 'conservative' followers go, the answer in both cases is that it is not necessary to 'deal'. Events are dealing with them far more effectively than oceans of ink and solar systems of electrons.
Enkidu identified himself as a former member of the Sierra Club. My wife, a racially minded woman, is an even better example. She's a former Green Peace activist.
Go to the AFL-CIO. Again you'll find plenty of white workers who already know their 'leadership' has betrayed them and their families by adherence to Semitically Correct principles.
I'm sure many white 'civil libertarians' in the ACLU have been recently undeceived by Alan Dershowitz's calls for legalized police torture and collective punishment. Here's an example of a great 'Civil Libertarian' whose allegiance to his vaunted 'principles' is self-exposed as just another vast Jew lie. As soon as Jewish interests were at stake Dershowitz had no qualms about dispensing with the Bill of Rights and substituting methods identical to what the Judeo-Bolsheviks did, or what Jews do any time they get the power to do so.
The Semitic corruption of virtually every American institution has led to the identical result of internal institutional self-betrayal. "Is it good for the Jews" becomes the only guiding principle of any organization infected with Judeo-ism.
Take for instance the still-born America First Party. This gaggle of left-behind Buchananite political hobbyists recently held their founding convention in Orlando. And front and center in leadership positions were Jews and Negroes. Look close because this is the only place you'll ever see Jews and Negroes in the America First Party. You will not see any Jewish or Negro followers. Those will remain in Demo-ZOG voting their racial interests.
So what is accomplished? The same thing the followers are accomplishing in Demo-ZOG: protecting their non-white racial interests.
Already this circus is providing an example of an organization calling for Washingtonian foreign policy neutrality in principle. In practice the America First Party is incapable of naming the #1 subverter of neutrality in American politics: Zionist Jews and their rabble. In this they are even more timid than their nominal patron saint, St. Patrick of Buchanan.
The Giles Campaign declined an invitation to participate in this convention in August. This was because Judeo-AFP leaders immediately issued demands to throttle the anti-Zionist and pro-white issues. And these demands naturally emanated from the so-called Super Patriot Jews in the AFP. The AFP is thus already displaying in conception all the pathologies of advanced Judeo-Neo-Conism, and for the same reasons.
We refused. This refusal did not deter many individual white AFPers from coming back to support the Giles candidacy.
The case for White Nationalism exists naturally. It's ZOG, not us, who has to eternally attempt to pound square pegs into round holes with ever greater applications of force.
The case that has to be made is the case for White National leadership. Simple courage and simple messages firmly adhered to are what is necessary.
White people do not need to be told that reverse discrimination is a fact of life. They do not need to be told that negro neighborhoods are infinitely dangerous or that negroes degrade any school they overwhelm. They need to know that stable leadership exists who can be trusted to stick to their interests through thick and thin without going off on weird tangents.
"Maguire"
2003-06-20 19:03 | User Profile
triskelion,
Interesting info. Judeo-Bolsheviks is much proper than Judeo-Christians. By the way, some of the longer posts will become more readable if you close the quote tag.
2003-06-20 20:34 | User Profile
Frederick William I --
It just so happens that I read about the bogus term "Judeo-Christian" a few years ago. It came into "standard usage" about 1950 via the New [Jew] Yawk City media establishment, who wanted to link Jews and Christians together lest super-duper evil anti-Sandwich-ism crop up [I hates it vhen dat happens].
Christians are now brainwashedly going around saying "Judeo-Christian" every other day, and so are less likely to say a bad word about HymieBoy and The Sneaky Tribe, lest they anger Christ, aka The Dude Who Came Back in Linderspeak. [Never mind that today's Jews ain't the real Hebrews since they are a hybrid group. :o Guess Pat Robertson don't care 'bout that little detail...
The term "Judeo-Christian" is Good For Jews [tm].
2003-06-20 21:58 | User Profile
Greetings, I just registered here. The American First Party is a super solid organization. Checo out the links from the adl.
[url=http://www.adl.org/special%5Freports/ccc/ccc%5Fmilitant.asp]http://www.adl.org/special%5Freports/ccc/c...%5Fmilitant.asp[/url]
"A. J. Barker, currently state chairman of the North Carolina CCC. Mr. Barker was a leader in the Populist Party, which backed David Duke for president in 1988. Duke is an ex-Klansman and founder of the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP). In 1993, Mr. Barker's role in the founding of the America First Party was highlighted by Edward Fields in his virulently anti-Semitic newsletter, The Truth at Last. Fields informed readers that he and Barker established the party to fight for the rights of the white majority in the United States. A flyer explaining the founding of the America First Party spoke of the "desperation of the current political situation," and cited the number of "Jews along with militant Lesbians, homosexuals, anti-family feminists and even Communists" in President Clinton's Administration. Mr. Barker was elected the national chair of the America First Party and at its organizing conference reportedly spoke about white children being "victimized by the anti-White propaganda on TV."
At a follow-up meeting of the America First Party, held in Clemmons, North Carolina, Mr. Barker appeared with invited guest Richard Butler, the head of Aryan Nations, a paramilitary hate group based in Hayden Lake, Iowa. Aryan Nations follows the "Christian Identity" philosophy, a doctrine that maintains that Anglo-Saxons are the Biblical "chosen people," that nonwhites are "mud people" on the level of animals, and that Jews are the "children of Satan." Aryan Nations also promotes anti-Semitism and the establishment of a white racist state.
William Carter, who was chairman of the South Carolina chapter of the CCC, also made an appearance at the founding conference of the America First Party, where he reportedly spoke about his work with the CCC, and "the importance of building political activity on the precinct level." Mr. Carter was also the South Carolina state chairman of David Duke's 1992 Presidential campaign before serving as chairman of the South Carolina CCC."
2003-06-20 22:01 | User Profile
Check out the issues Jim Giles ran on.
[url=http://americafirstparty.org/candidates/2002/ca320.shtml]http://americafirstparty.org/candidates/20...002/ca320.shtml[/url]
"Top Issues
End all trade policies that are neither fair nor free
Shore up borders and end immigration for 25 years for assimilation
Stop the $10 million a day the U.S. gives Israel".
Try to get involved with this party at the local level.
2003-06-20 22:58 | User Profile
Indra --
Ahh, that means nothing. The ideological nugget is found in their website and in their newsletters.
So far I see nothing that makes me want to support AFP.
2003-06-21 03:50 | User Profile
Indra,
Thanks for the information. This is good News. The Party should try build some parts of an Anglo-European Ethnic Nationalism into the Platform of the Party. I am glad to know they are working with CofCC; this is very good. The CofCC is the best group America has at this time. All Patriot Groups need to based on European Ethnic Nationalism.
And Welcome to the Forum Indra!
:gun: :gun: :gun: :gun:
2003-06-21 10:19 | User Profile
Always? I see it used much less often by the left than by con-servatives intending to underline their commitment to "tolerance" and "inclusiveness" at all costs. Was the term ever used before the Jewish 20th century?
Judeo-Christian is a term in wide usage at Freak Republik. Zhids must feel warm and fuzzy with this deference the goyim are showing to them, without them ever asking for it.
"Judeo-Christian" is as much an oxymoron as "Satano-Christian" would be, were such a term ever to creep its way into the American lexicon.
2003-06-21 17:23 | User Profile
triskelion,
By the way, some of the longer posts will become more readable if you close the quote tag.
let me second that Mr. Triskelion. You have very good posts, but they are often, especially when long, very hard to follow. A little close tag could would wonders. In fact, all you need is just one lousy slash mark.
Let me give you an example. A standard, hard to follow quote response cycle from you (misspelling quote to deactivate HBB)
*[quot] It certainly seems like the America First Party could ideologically prove to have similar potential if it could somehow achieve a similar level of electoral success. [quot]
With the aid of just one slash mark, as follows (misspelling quote to deactivate HBB)
*[quot] It certainly seems like the America First Party could ideologically prove to have similar potential if it could somehow achieve a similar level of electoral success. [/quot]
Becomes - viola
*> ** It certainly seems like the America First Party could ideologically prove to have similar potential if it could somehow achieve a similar level of electoral success. **
Isn't this better?
:th: :sm:
2003-06-21 20:56 | User Profile
Indra --
Ahh, that means nothing. The ideological nugget is found in their website and in their newsletters.
So far I see nothing that makes me want to support AFP.
I don't know, Franco. Their policies are all very blatantly pro white to me. They literally oppose every thing the chosen has pushed for over the last 100 years. That is about as far right as you go in today?s political climate without naming our enemy. This party was clearly formed with European Americans in mind but to each their own.
2003-06-22 19:10 | User Profile
Indra --
Ahh, that means nothing. The ideological nugget is found in their website and in their newsletters.
So far I see nothing that makes me want to support AFP.
I don't know, Franco. Their policies are all very blatantly pro white to me. They literally oppose every thing the chosen has pushed for over the last 100 years. That is about as far right as you go in today?s political climate without naming our enemy.
:lol: I don't think that's enough for Franco.
In fact I don't think any organization without skinhead pictures, swastikas, guillotines, ropes, and skulls will be enough for Franco.
This party was clearly formed with European Americans in mind but to each their own.
I though it was too, but how far you can go politically will always be a lively matter, one which rightists have always had great trouble agreeing on, or even talking civilly about. Relatively speaking, we do pretty good here.
Now you do have to be careful talking about the AFP. From what I know of it it's a rather loose, eclectic group of people, geographicaly and philosophically. It had a good hard-line nationalist orientation in the beginning, but then tried to accommodate a group of generally but not unanimously pro-Buchanan refugees from the Reform Party. Like David Duke said in response to a question about the Klan once "which klan?" so similarly you need to probably out to specify "which AFP". The link you have is from one of their state websites. (North Carolina)
2003-06-22 20:18 | User Profile
:lol: I don't think that's enough for Franco.
In fact I don't think any organization without skinhead pictures, swastikas, guillotines, ropes, and skulls will be enough for Franco.
Would be nice to scrap that kosher stamp for starters :blink:
2003-06-22 22:50 | User Profile
[url=http://www.hoffman-info.com/wire9.html]http://www.hoffman-info.com/wire9.html[/url]
Judeo-Christian Political Correctness and New Age Capitalism in the American Oz "A Utopia for Usurers" by Michael A. Hoffman II
Copyright 2003 hoffman-info.com
Neo-cons have a new crusade against "political correctness." According to the Newhouse News Service , the commissars of correctness in this case are not feminists or U.C. Berkeley professors, but Muslims:
"Leading Muslim organizations say it's time for Americans to stop using the phrase 'Judeo-Christian' when describing the values and character that define the United States. Better choices, they say, are ... 'Abrahamic,' referring to Abraham, the patriarch held in common by the monotheistic big three religions.
"The new language should be used 'in all venues where we normally talk about Judeo-Christian values, starting with the media, academia, statements by politicians and comments made in churches, synagogues and other places,' said Agha Saeed, founder and chairman of the American Muslim Alliance, a political group headquartered in Fremont, California...Others take offense, arguing that to alter the phrase 'Judeo-Christian' is political correctness and revisionist history at its worst.
"A lot of the ideas that underpin civil liberties come from Judeo-Christian theology,' said the Rev. Ted Haggard of Colorado Springs, Colo., president of the National Association of Evangelicals. 'What the Islamic community needs to make are positive contributions to culture and society so we can include them.'
"Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center, said a 'Judeo-Christian understanding of things like freedom of conscience and liberty' are embodied in the Constitution. 'No offense intended,' he said, 'but Muslims weren't a part of that, even though they're part of the discussion now.' The conflict illustrates the power of words, especially those touching on religion, national history and identity." (End quote from Newhouse News).
Calling America "Islamic" is no more of a betrayal than calling it by the oxymoron "Judeo-Christian" (a monstrous hybrid of Pharisaic Judaism and the creed of Jesus Christ). What interests this writer is the genesis of this term, which is now ubiquitous ("...part of the vernacular, uttered recently by public officials ranging from Republican Attorney General John Ashcroft to Sen. Ted Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat..").
"Judeo-Christian" was seldom used to describe our nation's core values, until the advent of the pro-Soviet change-agents who came to power in Washington D.C. during the Second World War:
"From its founding to the late 1940s, the United States was commonly described as Christian, a trend epitomized by an 1892 Supreme Court ruling in which Justice David Brewer wrote, 'This is a Christian nation.' According to a 1984 scholarly article by religion writer Mark Silk, 'Judeo-Christian' wasn't used to refer to a common American outlook of values and beliefs until World War II, when the supposedly Christian Nazis and their death camps made future references to 'our Christian civilization' sound ominously exclusive."
In other words, the phrase "Judeo-Christian," besides being a monstrous falsehood, is an Orwellian artifice that arose with the ascent of the pro-Communist regime of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the "inclusive" political correctness it imposed in that era.
Islam is surely a mistaken religious system, but it honors Christ and Mary. Judaism is a religion whose holiest book puts Christ in a toilet filled with boiling hot excrement (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Gittin 57a), and His Mother Mary in a whorehouse, where she "played the harlot for carpenters" (Sanhedrin 106A). There is no comparison between Islam and Judaism. Muslims, though in error, are fundamentally of good will. They are woefully ignorant and misled in certain key respects, but they are not predominately enemies of God. Judaism on the other hand, despises the God of the Bible, whose divine Son it ritually execrates, for Jesus appears not only in the New Testament, but is pre-figured in the Old as well.
The use of the term "Abrahamic," to describe America's religious tradition, as proposed by Muslims, would, paradoxically, be a more accurate appellation since Christians, not the rabbis, are the rightful heirs of Biblical Israel and comprise the true children of Abraham and Moses (John 8:39-41; John 5:45-47).
Until the 20th century, most Christian Americans understood themselves to be the New Israel. They would have been stupefied by the claims made today for the old Jerusalem in the Middle East, "the killer of the prophets." Until the suppressed history of America is more completely understood, the current debate over Islamic attempts to re-direct America's identity, will remain a plaything of the neo-cons, who circumscribe the issue so as to limit it solely to contrived outrage about "those who would tamper with our history and traditions."
But "Judeo-Christian" is itself a recent contrivance, a form of modernist tampering and a neologism which represents the counterfeiting of our history by Zionists and neo-Communists who despised our western heritage, with its historic suspicion toward all things rabbinic.
The buccaneer system of usury that rules the West in our time, through the World Bank and the Federal Reserve, is a New Age heresy. It is not Free Enterprise, it is New Age capitalism, with its roots in the innovations of the 18th century political economy of Jeremy Bentham and David Riccardo, the targets of Charles Dickens' jeremiad in some of the most honored classics of western literature, including "Oliver Twist," "A Christmas Carol" and "Bleak House."
There is no Biblical sanction for the capitalist heresy. The Bible forbids usury among Israelites, as does Islam among Muslims. The Bible recognized that the charging of interest was a form of warfare, and reserves it for use only against an enemy. But the Talmud, with its endless lawyerly loopholes, nullified the Biblical injunction and permitted the taking of interest, based on a rabbinic "prozbul issued for the good of the world." The Protestant "reformer" John Calvin introduced this Talmudic toxin into Christianity.
Judaism and "Judeo-Christianity" are two sides of a counterfeit coin. Far from representing the radix of our American heritage and western civilization, they are the focal points of its perversion and dissolution. If we wish to defend the Founders against the subversion of their American dream, we will fight Judaic as well as Islamic demands. To single out Islam alone as a threat, is an exercise in bullying and cowardice. Islam could not produce a Shylock, but Judaism and its masonic-capitalist American Oz have minted a legion of Shylocks, and they have the gall to call their diabolic system, "liberty as the Founders envisioned it." In truth, this is not liberty, but license to rob widows and orphans, a crime as old as the anathemas thundered by Isaiah.
"No offense intended," but rabbis made zero contribution to the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, even though "they're part of the discussion now." What the Judaic community needs to make are positive contributions to Christian culture and society. They might begin by ceasing all pressure to censor or suppress Mel Gibson's forthcoming motion picture about the crucifixion of Christ; lifting the national ban on Nativity scenes and Bethlehem Christmas pageants in our schools; and desisting in their replacement theology -- substituting Auschwitz for Calvary as the central ontological event in history and the basis of their new religion for gentiles -- Holocaustianity.
Until these first few steps are taken, the rabbis have far less claim on our affections and heritage than the mullahs and imams, the majority of whom wish peace and respect upon any authentically Christian nation. The trouble is, they haven't seen any such nation of late, anywhere on earth. Unlike Boobus Americanus, contentedly munching his genetically-modified junk food and dutifully paying 24% interest on his credit card's "late fees," Muslims don't mistake Oz, with its Skull-and-Bones president, for the Republic of Christ. Rather, they see what Chesterton saw, a "utopia for usurers."
[Hoffman, a former reporter for the Associated Press and the author of six books, is the editor of Revisionist History newsletter].
2003-06-22 23:31 | User Profile
MR:
Hoffman gets a little circular sometimes.
Unless there's some secret sect hiding out in Asia Minor, theologically speaking there are no "Jews" anymore- just varying sects of Talmudism.
This is what Christ excoriated the Pharisees for. While the written "tradition" had not yet been compiled, the "oral" Talmudic tradition was already in evidence when Christ walked the Earth.
2003-06-25 04:29 | User Profile
BUCHANANITE PARTY APPEARS TO BE DISINTEGRATING.
Reports to Politics1 indicate that the nascent America First Party is in disarray. The AFP was formed last year by the former "Buchanan Brigade" activists who briefly took control of Ross Perot's Reform Party in 2000 -- but were squeezed out over the past two years as the social moderates regained control. Within a month of the AFP's founding, ten former Reform Party state chapters formally broke away from the RP and affiliated with the AFP. By the August 2002 National Convention, the AFP had affiliates in around 20 states -- and they hoped to be organized in nearly all 50 states by the end of 2003. Now, those hopes seem dashed. The AFP's national chair, vice chair and treasurer have all recently resigned. Likewise, many AFP state parties have purportedly left the national party. The AFP National Convention -- scheduled for next month -- has also reportedly been cancelled. One party activist said that a faction will attempt to reorganize at a July meeting in Kentucky -- placing a greater emphasis on building the party at the state level. Finally, it appears the party will abandon the possibility of fielding a Presidential candidate in 2004.
[url=http://politics1.com/]Politics1.Com[/url]
2003-06-25 05:21 | User Profile
I am totally puzzled by the over powering desire of American minor parties with fielding presidential candidates. It is so undeniably beyond their capabilities to actually mount a credible (let a lone competitive) national campaign that to squander what precious little resources they have proves to me that they ââ¬Åon the fringeââ¬Â because they are incompetent. I brought this point up about the Buchanan efforts many times before and find this all consuming desire to do only that which has zero chance of working simply baffling.
If a minor party or candidate, including well know celebrates Buchanan or billionaires like Parot, wants to one day have a realistic bid for the presidency they have to have at the vary least strong regional following. When I think of the many millions of dollars collected and the thousands of man hours expended to win less then 1% of popular vote I donââ¬â¢t know if one should laugh cry. Yet the last post says that the Buchananite AFP is giving up on a presidential campaign after itââ¬â¢s thread bare state networks fall apart and will instead field state wide candidates. Think of how many local campaigns that money could have been used for as well as a campaign training school, community activist programs, setting up local media efforts, private schools for nationalist children and who knows what else. The road no noticed is very long while one well traveled is clear dead end.
In the end. I can only conclude that any racially aware white should simply give up totally on the organizations and ââ¬Åleaders with almost no followersââ¬Â and simply start up their own community action program. Such an approach is clearly feasible, and often productive, way for a normal but hardworking person to advance the cause with a great track record in plenty of countries. Yet it some how lacks the appeal of a massive investment by thousands of people into a clearly futile effort to gain national prominence.
2003-06-25 07:39 | User Profile
I am totally puzzled by the over powering desire of American minor parties with fielding presidential candidates. It is so undeniably beyond their capabilities to actually mount a credible (let a lone competitive) national campaign that to squander what precious little resources they have proves to me that they ?on the fringe? because they are incompetent.* I brought this point up about the Buchanan efforts many times before and find this all consuming desire to do only that which has zero chance of working simply baffling. You aren't the only one baffled. It indeed has long been intriguing to political scientists why third parties in America exist at all,let alone run Presidential candidates, when they have zero chance of winning. Conventional political science theory says campaigns are an investment, and the only possible return is political power via electoral victory. The reason small parties - communist, socialist, populist , etc. - regularly field candidates for presidential elections thus baffles them, leading them to assume they have some other reasons for participating in this process.
One reason is simply publicity I suppose. Being a putative candidate for election occasionaly allows good publicity, TV interviews, etc. Not that I'm really an expert at this sort of thing. (probably why I reside on the internet)
If a minor party or candidate, including well know celebrates Buchanan or billionaires like Parot, wants to one day have a realistic bid for the presidency they have to have at the vary least strong regional following. This isn't necessarly true. Political unknown Ross Perot started his 1992 campaign out of the blue, when he made some statement on some talk show that if the people of America wanted him to run for President he might be inclined to do so. Just an aside.
When I think of the many millions of dollars collected and the thousands of man hours expended to win less then 1% of popular vote I don?t know if one should laugh cry. Well that was not a brainless move, just a bad miscalulation. Buchanan tried to inherit the legacy, reputation, federal campaign funding, and prestige of Perot's Reform Party network, gambling he could win it and Perot over to his principles and personality. He just gambled wrong, and the Reform Party venture was a complete bust, not giving him anything except 12 million of federal campaign money. (Now that is a seperate story altogether. Some people say Buchanan indeed benefited from the money - its just that his followers and movement didn't. Who knows? I've heard some strong opinions on this subject - but I already know you aren't a Buchanan fan anyway, and you know anyway I'm a pro-Buchanan contrarian if only out of perversity ;) )
Yet the last post says that the Buchananite AFP is giving up on a presidential campaign after it?s thread bare state networks fall apart and will instead field state wide candidates. Think of how many local campaigns that money could have been used for as well as a campaign training school, community activist programs, setting up local media efforts, private schools for nationalist children and who knows what else.* The road no noticed is very long while one well traveled is clear dead end.
You seem to be getting ahead of yourself. The AFP hadn't traveled that road now had they? They were just, allegedly, embarking on it. Maybe they are now getting off before they had got very far, precisely for the reasons you suggest. Have you considered that possibility?
In the end. I can only conclude that any racially aware white should simply give up totally on the organizations and ?leaders with almost no followers? and simply start up their own community action program. Such an approach is clearly feasible, and often productive, way for a normal but hardworking person to advance the cause with a great track record in plenty of countries. Yet it some how lacks the appeal of a massive investment by thousands of people into a clearly futile effort to gain national prominence.
The community action program sounds intriguing. We certainly could use some links and information on the concept.
Maybe you could explain a little better though the exact rationale for such community focus. Especially on a forum like this, with international reach, by your particpation. There is a reason, misguided or not, why political parties efforts, at least in America, get directed toward the federal level. That is where all the choice plum are. Decisions about immigration, civil rights and affirmative action, and foreign policy, where such a tremendous emphasis of this forum lies, are all federal. Actualy the federal government takes all the good, iteresting policy issues, and gives states/municipalities all the ones no one wants. like caring for old folks without money and illegals.
Things that just don't have a lot of "sex appeal". Maybe you could explain this better. I wonder if your peculiar position vis a vis Faroe Island regionalism flavors you're perceptions here a bit.
To summarize I recognize the discontent with things, but people do the things they do because better alternatives aren't terribly obvious. Electoral Buchananism may not seem like a great alternative to the nationalist, but it gains traction because it always seems better than the alternative people like the NA always present, which is terrorism and self-immolation. If you have any magic alternatives I and a lot of other people will be all ears, but I'd be surprised if you have anything that we really hadn't even taken a passing look at before. But I'm certainly willing to look again.
The whole theory of elections and how they influence political power indeed needs to be developed by the nationalist right. Organizations like the AFP may seem futile, but they attract followers because at least they know their efforts aren't going down the sinister rathole known as establishment politics, now controlled with an iron fist by the neocons, as escribed by this intersting article I found in Chronicles.
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=993]This Is Conservatism - Ain't It Pretty To Think So?[/url]
Unfortunately without trainingm or knowledge of how these previous efforts in mainstream parties went astray, third parties just turn out to be alternative ratholes. :(
2003-06-25 10:57 | User Profile
They wrote Judeo-Christian in their principles? Faggedaboutit* :dung:
You aren't acquainted with the general history of this term in Anglo-Saxon parlance. That is the way Christian values have always been described, and attacked, by the left (the Jewish left more than anyone) in America.
Even Franco doesn't usually make this type of mistake :rolleyes: (Although I'm sure he will in time)
Yes, perhaps you're right about the popular etymology of this term, but I still think that the term should be rejected for simply being a false description of reality.
Judaism and Christianity appeared at about the same time, and they separated from a common root precisely because they rejected each other.
The Jews are (very consciously) the followers Pharisees, whereas Christians are (at least purportedly) the followers of Christ.
Christ was Anti-Pharisee, and the Pharisees were/are Anti-Christ (see the Gospel of Matthew).
Ne'er the twain shall meet.
But that's not all. Judaism has been understood for the past several centuries to include the Kabbalah, which is of course a pagan work and not even part of the great monotheistic family of religions. I do not doubt that some forms of Judaism that reject the Kabbalah were/are indeed monotheistic, but the popular understanding of the word "Judaism" embraces of the Kabbalistic mystics of the Ashkenazim as normative. The religion of Joe Lieberman is aimed at the spiritual-sexual union of the gods Holy Blessed One and his sister-consort Shekhinah. That's pagan, pure and simple.
Thus, the term "Judeo-Christian" means either "Christ-Antichrist" or "Christ-Pagan", take your pick, which is clearly oxymoronic. Thus, the use of the oxymoron "Judeo-Christian" reduces of necessity any argument to gibberish, and can only lead to dangerous error.
It should be rejected completely and firmly, IMHO.
Walter
2003-06-26 04:48 | User Profile
With respect to FW's post I will say that the notion that minor parties gain exposure via untenable presidential campaigns lacks face validity. That lack of validity comes from failing to enter into any debates (because everyone agrees they almost never mount a viable campaign in even a single state) combined with zero media exposure means that they get no publicity. On the other hand, I did point to numerous other forms of activism/campaigning that do get tangible results. It seems to me that when you keep following the same failed prescription endlessly it's hard to come to any other conclusion then political incompetence.
With respect to Perot one must remember that he was very well connected with the political establishment (that's how he won massive non-competitive from the Social Security Administration for EDS) and fabulously wealthy which makes him very much the lone exception to observations I made about independents. In any case, he had a pretty sizable basis of political support in Texas (as good a base as any for national aspirations) and had long been a fixture on that state's politically elite circles. In any case, he really was not substantively different the establishment he clearly is a part of yet claims to reject. His party was nothing more then an personality vehicle that achieved little outside of electing faux anti-establishmentarian Ventura in Minnesota and helping to trash the last Buchanan campaign . In the end, the one off example of the billionaire ego maniac with establishment connections should best be seen not as an independent bid for power but as a "demopublican" that had the means to ignore partisan channels.
Buchanan's bid for the RP was a brainless move in that he should have known that the whole organization was basically hollow and all the institutional clout was controlled by Perot sycophants. Had he won uncontested control of the RP he would have quickly figured out that the RP lacked any real campaign organization or competency because it was designed to be a fiefdom for Perot and nothing more. In any case, as Perot was most definitely a non alternative that pushed a standard Social Democratic cultural agenda it should have been no surprise that very large portion of the party members would never support someone with a moderately conservative social agenda. In any case, 12 million USD is simply not enough to mount a credible national campaign effort.
The AFP clearly had planned to travel that same dead end road but at least they realized that doing so was politically stupid before Buchanan did. As not being a Buchanan fan I think the last statement I made on the decidedly non conservative nature of the man's ideology pretty much sums up why he wouldn't have gotten anything worth while done if he was elected.
With respect to community activism I don't have any unique ideas. Rather, I simply learned from successful parties in Europa what works. I wrote three articles on the matter targeted towards Americans over at VNN which have gotten plenty of positive feed back but I'm not to optimistic about the will existing for more then a handful of activists actually putting them to use. In any case, if your going to successfully pitch ideas to the public not endorsed by the propasphere you best have a well developed ideology, public policies that are realistic and principally derived from that world view and the sense to see how those prescriptions can be targeted to numerous, narrowly defined interest groups. I don't see any of those things in the states and no indication that such matters are going to be looked at as such an examination is rather painful. As to Faroese Nationalism note that I reject regionalism as we are a nation and not a region and have been so for roughly 1200 years. In any case, my overall ideological perceptions have little to do with Faroese Nationalism outside of my opposition to imperialism and notions of intra-racial supremacy. Instead, my notions pretty much came about from living in multi-racial dens of misery and decay in the U.S./U.K., experiencing the decrepitude of Social Democracy and the evils of capitalism first hand. Of course, were it not for reading about real alternatives from numerous Revolutionary Nationalist canons I'd be lost in simple hatred for the current order.
In the end, I have stated quite concisely why in the ââ¬ËPJB: Mexico, France Should Pay the Price for not Supporting Iraqi War' thread. If you recall, I gave TD an accurate summation of BJB's lack of moral fortitude with the following: "You're an ardent supporter of someone: that defends the police state antics of the Patriot Acts, ritually condemns "racism", thinks that America fought in WWII to help assure a brown Europa, thinks that M.L. King was a fine man, supports an undefined but lower level of immigration because it will allow for the magic of assimilation, thinks that countries which failed to grovel before the Likud party should be punished and thinks that third world immigration can be a source of national pride. That I think pretty much sums it up although I wish it was other wise. " Again, I will say that it is foolish to support a person/organization that acquiesces to your enemies for personal advantage.
I'd like to see the American "right" stop surrendering principle, what supposedly makes the worth supporting in the first place, in the name of moderation defined in the terms of our enemies. I'd like to see them get serious about ideology and figuring out how to market the policy prescriptions that flow from them. Most of all, I'd like to see real activism. Most of all, I'd like to reasons to believe that such things are something other then a pipe dream because 200 hundred million Occidental Americans deserve something more then Stalinism lite repression, third world poverty and Howard Stern style anti-culture which is what's coming.
2003-06-26 15:15 | User Profile
Third parties generally drain votes from the Big Two, and do so disproportionately from one or the other party. Thus this 'suffering' party has a motive to adopt features of the platform of the third party, to stem the loss of votes and funding. In this way, third parties who never win can still influence policy.
Vote America First for the Presidential election. They are the only party with any name recognition that consistently opposes mass immigration from the 3rd world.
2003-06-27 04:48 | User Profile
With respect to FW's post I will say that the notion that minor parties gain exposure via untenable presidential campaigns lacks face validity. That lack of validity comes from failing to enter into any debates (because everyone agrees they almost never mount a viable campaign in even a single state) combined with zero media exposure means that they get no publicity. On the other hand, I did point to numerous other forms of activism/campaigning that do get tangible results. It seems to me that when you keep following the same failed prescription endlessly it's hard to come to any other conclusion then political incompetence. Like I said, like you I agree the reason for Presidential campaigns by some standards lacks plausibility, and I don't understand it. That said, if it is a mistake, it is a fairly widespread one, made by a great many different fringe parties, Communists, Populists, as well as small parties like the Greens and Libertarians. Do you similarly think Ralph Nadar or Harry Browne were stupid for running in 2000? The mainstream Demo's say that about Ralph, the mainstream pubbies about Browne and Buchanan. Maybe that's what keeps goading them to run ;)
I understands your arguments, but so many of the arguments against Buchanan come by people with basically what are barely hidden vociferous anti-Parliamentary mindsets in general, I pass most through a very tight noise filter. I rarely bother to seriously listen to them, and thus have not examined many alternatives to Pat's policies seriously, because there are so few good people who assert such theories.
**With respect to Perot one must remember that he was very well connected with the political establishment (that's how he won massive non-competitive from the Social Security Administration for EDS) and fabulously wealthy which makes him very much the lone exception to observations I made about independents. In any case, he had a pretty sizable basis of political support in Texas (as good a base as any for national aspirations) and had long been a fixture on that state's politically elite circles. In any case, he really was not substantively different the establishment he clearly is a part of yet claims to reject. His party was nothing more then an personality vehicle that achieved little outside of electing faux anti-establishmentarian Ventura in Minnesota and helping to trash the last Buchanan campaign . In the end, the one off example of the billionaire ego maniac with establishment connections should best be seen not as an independent bid for power but as a "demopublican" that had the means to ignore partisan channels. **
No doubt Perot was a nut, with a following of nuts. As you note, its difficult to outcompete Parrot in the nutcase department, and an utter mistake to be drawn in. That said, Perot semed to have a certain evil charm and ability to lure normally balanced and well thinking people in, like Richard Lamm of Colorado. Buchanan was hardly the first good man to naively trust in the Parrot.
**Buchanan's bid for the RP was a brainless move in that he should have known that the whole organization was basically hollow and all the institutional clout was controlled by Perot sycophants. Had he won uncontested control of the RP he would have quickly figured out that the RP lacked any real campaign organization or competency because it was designed to be a fiefdom for Perot and nothing more. In any case, as Perot was most definitely a non alternative that pushed a standard Social Democratic cultural agenda it should have been no surprise that very large portion of the party members would never support someone with a moderately conservative social agenda. In any case, 12 million USD is simply not enough to mount a credible national campaign effort. **
Well Buchanan was looking to do what all politicians look to do, expand their base. (in Pat's case from his perceived cul de sac in the extreme right wing of the GOP) The Reform Party initially was not an implausible target, since that's where a lot of pubbies disillusioned with Bush had gone. An analysis of supporters indicated some similarity. True, Perot was a nut, but he indicated initially that he would keep his hands off the RP and personally support Buchanan's bid.
For people who always criticize Buchanan for caving in on principle, the reason should be noted: Pat's claim in A Republic Not an Empire that Hitler posed no threat to the United States and WWII was a mistake. According to well documented reports this is what caused the rift with Perot and his close subordinates (aka Gerry Moan and Co) in the RP.
For people who always whine about a movement lacking principle, you are sometimes awfully caviliar about the real sacrifices real people make for principles that are awfully close to yours. If VNN was devoted to anything more than posturing it would recognize this, and not always take the vacuous stance of "party of principle" when Pat has showed much more principle at times than they ever do.
The AFP clearly had planned to travel that same dead end road but at least they realized that doing so was politically stupid before Buchanan did. As not being a Buchanan fan I think the last statement I made on the decidedly non conservative nature of the man's ideology pretty much sums up why he wouldn't have gotten anything worth while done if he was elected. See above on Pat's principled nature. Its always easy to sound principled and ideologically pure when you aren't in the ballgame.
With respect to community activism I don't have any unique ideas. Rather, I simply learned from successful parties in Europa what works. I wrote three articles on the matter targeted towards Americans over at VNN which have gotten plenty of positive feed back but I'm not to optimistic about the will existing for more then a handful of activists actually putting them to use. Go ahead and put the links up.
** In any case, if your going to successfully pitch ideas to the public not endorsed by the propasphere you best have a well developed ideology, public policies that are realistic and principally derived from that world view and the sense to see how those prescriptions can be targeted to numerous, narrowly defined interest groups. I don't see any of those things in the states and no indication that such matters are going to be looked at as such an examination is rather painful.** No doubt, its hard work but badly necessary.
In the end, I have stated quite concisely why in the ?PJB: Mexico, France Should Pay the Price for not Supporting Iraqi War' thread. If you recall, I gave TD an accurate summation of BJB's lack of moral fortitude with the following: "You're an ardent supporter of someone: that defends the police state antics of the Patriot Acts, ritually condemns "racism", thinks that America fought in WWII to help assure a brown Europa, thinks that M.L. King was a fine man, supports an undefined but lower level of immigration because it will allow for the magic of assimilation, thinks that countries which failed to grovel before the Likud party should be punished and thinks that third world immigration can be a source of national pride. That I think pretty much sums it up although I wish it was other wise. " Again, I will say that it is foolish to support a person/organization that acquiesces to your enemies for personal advantage. Anyone that stays in the mainstream inhabits and works in a region fringe would-be politicians can only dream about. When you put forth a comprehensive critique of a politician you have the duty to be even-handed and objective. Any hardline nationalist can take a selected assortment of a moderate paleocons quotes like Buchanan and make them look like neocons, just like a hardline neocon like David Frum can take a no more biased selection of moderate paleocons quotes and make them like Hitlerites. Like Frum, if I think if the VNN contingent wishes to speak with credibility on moderate paleoconservatives it needs to find a way to transcend its own prejudices against mainstream paleoconservatism.
**I'd like to see the American "right" stop surrendering principle, what supposedly makes the worth supporting in the first place, in the name of moderation defined in the terms of our enemies. I'd like to see them get serious about ideology and figuring out how to market the policy prescriptions that flow from them. ** No doubt here. But for principle to stand out, it needs to show itself willing to take the risks to be successful does it not. Much "Principle" and "ideology" is in fact just the last refuge of political failures and rejects. A man that proves himself genuinely capable of political success, and can be seen to substantially jettison them for principles, does more to confirm the viability of his own principles than 10,000 VNN assertions of ones ideological purity. And IMO does more to help our people.
Most of all, I'd like to see real activism. Most of all, I'd like to reasons to believe that such things are something other then a pipe dream because 200 hundred million Occidental Americans deserve something more then Stalinism lite repression, third world poverty and Howard Stern style anti-culture which is what's coming.
I also would like to believe its more than a pipe dream. If wonder sometimes if we spent as much time fighting the enemy as fighting and belittling each other, we might surprise ourselves with the progress we could make.
Patrick Buchanan and other paleoconservatives certainly have their very human failings and shortcomings. But in my mind any movement that can't recognize their great contribution to American Nationalism and show some small degree of apreciation is not entirely undeserving of the future you so grimly and accurately describe. Its utter vanity for the fringe WN's to think they will achieve these desired ends on their own.
Unfortunately utter vanity is the only personal consistancy I see in VNNers like Linder and Co, an unfortunate characterestic they seem to share with the likes of Kristol, Goldberg, and Frum.
2003-07-17 08:14 | User Profile
In the end, I have stated quite concisely why in the ?PJB: Mexico, France Should Pay the Price for not Supporting Iraqi War' thread. If you recall, I gave TD an accurate summation of BJB's lack of moral fortitude with the following: "You're an ardent supporter of someone: that defends the police state antics of the Patriot Acts, ritually condemns "racism", thinks that America fought in WWII to help assure a brown Europa, thinks that M.L. King was a fine man, supports an undefined but lower level of immigration because it will allow for the magic of assimilation, thinks that countries which failed to grovel before the Likud party should be punished and thinks that third world immigration can be a source of national pride. That I think pretty much sums it up although I wish it was other wise. " Again, I will say that it is foolish to support a person/organization that acquiesces to your enemies for personal advantage.
Whenever I read these comments about Buchanan, it spite of their well meaning nature, I never can avoid the impression that they sound like the attitude of the persnickety theoretician who can never possibly see any good in a political candidate to the left of Hitler, no matter how far out on a limb he has gone by mainstream standards toward our movement.
**Scotchie notes that, as a result, "Back in Washington, the tone of liberal and conservative criticism of Buchanan was taken to a higher level .... Now the real heavy artillery was rolled out." The attacks on Buchanan were unusually ferocious. "On Crossfire one evening, [cohost Michael] Kinsley remarked that the level of criticism brought against Buchanan was unprecedented in recent political history." Pat Buchanan suddenly found himself denounced by self-styled GOP standard-bearers William J. Bennett and Charles Krauthammer for "fascistic" tendencies and "flirting with fascism." Also adopting the rhetoric of the far left, GOP Chairman Richard Bond claimed the only difference between Buchanan and David Duke was their attire. (Duke wore white sheets while Buchanan wore fancy suits.) Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich agreed, charging that Buchanan was "closer to David Duke" than to "normal mainstream conservatism." Bush spokesman Marlin Fitzwater claimed Buchanan's speeches were laced with "code words," and called him "a bully." New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd went so far as to claim that Buchanan had once written "a column praising Adolf Hitler."
The purpose was not merely to chase GOP voters away from Buchanan but to delegitimize the entire viewpoint he represented. The reasons for the smears were strategic and cultural rather than tactical and expedient. Scotchie quotes Chronicles contributing editor Samuel Francis:
[T]he authors of those mendacities had perceived some quality in the Buchanan movement that disturbed them more than usual. What they perceived was . . . the emergence of a new identity in American politics, one that the high science of managed and manipulated democracy is not yet quite prepared to handle and which is therefore more of a threat to the established powers than almost any previous challenge from the castrati of right and left. [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=9056]The Now And Future Pat Buchanan[/url]**
I'd like to see the American "right" stop surrendering principle, what supposedly makes the worth supporting in the first place, in the name of moderation defined in the terms of our enemies. I'd like to see them get serious about ideology and figuring out how to market the policy prescriptions that flow from them. Most of all, I'd like to see real activism. Most of all, I'd like to reasons to believe that such things are something other then a pipe dream because 200 hundred million Occidental Americans deserve something more then Stalinism lite repression, third world poverty and Howard Stern style anti-culture which is what's coming.
I would also like to see these things. But more than anything else, I would like those who seem to be trying to insert a modicum of reasonableness into the White nationalist ranks admit the practical folly they advance by never admitting to see a single single snit of good in any paleoconservative, like "Canny Sammy" or "Squinty Pat" no matter how couragously they stick their necks out for us in the face of mainstream pressure.
It is really amazing how much the NA types and ADL types agree in their opposition to Buchanan and Francis type paleoconservatism when you think about it. That's why, in spite of its supposed affirmation of freedom and self determination for the west and its traditional people, I cannot help but think that the constant opposition to any moderate vehicle for these demands indicate that they are at best being unrealistic, and more probably unwittingly in the service of a movement whose hardline opposition to paleoconservatism has been bolstered by an odd conjunction of occultish political forces caring nothing about the good of these people but rather interested only in establishing their own totalitarian rule and crushing all they see as a serious threat.