← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Franco
Thread ID: 7584 | Posts: 83 | Started: 2003-06-24
2003-06-24 04:14 | User Profile
Madrussian said something interesting, so I thought I would create a whole topic thread about it:
** Madrussian:
Incidentally, that conincided with OD becoming more "racialist" than ever before. Is paleoconservatism dead, in the more and more polarizing political landscape? **
I have also noticed that OD has recently become more 'racial' than paleo -- which to me is good because our enemies think RACIALLY [e.g. Jews and Blacks], not merely politically.
I wonder how Tex and the rest of OD feel about this? Do they want to "go back to paleo days?" Maybe if they do they could create 2 forums in one -- one for WNs and one for paleos.
[edited]
2003-06-24 04:38 | User Profile
Genuine conservatism is ardently racialistic. Given the current extent of societal decay any worth while conservaitism must also be revolutionary. Those that understand that nature of Occidental degeneration which permited "the long march throuhg the institutions" will note that no golden era ever existed but rather the lack of a folkish disposition allowed us to be subverted and controled by racial aliens. Paleo-conservatism has been an abject failure in the states so it must be remade into a folkish expression of Occidental regeneration or it will simply become just another obscure vestage of a people to timid to exist and a marginal elite content to follo those that destroyed what they claimed to hold dear.
2003-06-24 05:00 | User Profile
Considering that paleoconservatism, that is the original conservatism, has been defeated and marginalized, would it follow that the contemporary paleos are following in the footsteps? Is overt racial awareness and not excusing oneself for being that way a long needed inoculation against the enemies of the West?
2003-06-24 06:03 | User Profile
Originally posted by triskelion@Jun 24 2003, 04:38 * Genuine conservatism is ardently racialistic. Given the current extent of societal decay any worth while conservaitism must also be revolutionary.* Depends what you mean by racialistic, revolutionary, and conservative. Even the German conservatives that rejected democracy and liberalism like Moeller, Spengler, and Junger rejected overt racialism. Spengler said "racialism is the lowest form of conservatism".
Those that understand that nature of Occidental degeneration which permited "the long march throuhg the institutions" will note that no golden era ever existed but rather the lack of a folkish disposition allowed us to be subverted and controled by racial aliens. Paleo-conservatism has been an abject failure in the states so it must be remade into a folkish expression of Occidental regeneration or it will simply become just another obscure vestage of a people to timid to exist and a marginal elite content to follo those that destroyed what they claimed to hold dear.
Yes, but it must also remain conservative to be accomplish anything positive for the west. How to do that, that is the question.
2003-06-24 07:05 | User Profile
*Originally posted by triskelion@Jun 24 2003, 04:38 * ** Genuine conservatism is ardently racialistic. **
Hear, hear!
More to the point, genuine nationalism is racial or nothing, even granting the special circumstances here in the US. Black nationalists made this quite clear to me on many job sites I have visited where they keep their crews "brotherly" and intend to stay that way. I suppose it's the Paleo-Nationalist in me that keeps agreeing with them.
Factor in our very own n-word and the problem seems to take care of itself. As long as our goal includes work and place for our folk, other nationalists will eventually have to concede our legitimacy and even work with us. I've never really seen that big a clash between us WNs and paleos because paleos remain nationalist.
That's little "n" nationalist for us local-firsters and for the bringing about of devolution, abolishing the union, letting Dixie jump-start the Confederacy, etc and so on. I don't mean Nationalism as in George W.'s war on everybody. (Just to make that clear.)
2003-06-24 09:12 | User Profile
And I will repeat, as per the last time you quoted Spengler on this FW, "conservatism is the lowest form of racialism". Nothing, nothing, conservatives value (or even liberals for that matter) means a damn thing outside the European racial context that created their world.
Besides I do not believe Spengler rejected overt racialism for he believed in the fact of race and therefore could not reject it ââ¬â racialism is not a philosophy but a mere observation of the facts. Rather his inner 'ego' struggled against the inescapable reality of biological predeterminism. He rejects the terminology and the consequences for the individual but not the fact.
**The Celtic-German ââ¬Ëraceââ¬â¢ has the strongest will-power the world has ever seen. But this "I will", "I will!" -- which fills the Faustian soul to the brim, makes up the ultimate meaning of its existence and prevails in every expression of Faustian culture in thought and deed, in creative act and demeanour -- awakens consciousness of the total isolation of the Self in infinite space. Will and loneliness are at bottom the same. . .[cry me a river]
Oswald Spengler - Years of Decision **
2003-06-24 13:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by na Gaeil is gile@Jun 24 2003, 09:12 * Besides I do not believe Spengler rejected overt racialism for he believed in the fact of race and therefore could not reject it ââ¬â racialism is not a philosophy but a mere observation of the facts. Rather his inner 'ego' struggled against the inescapable reality of biological predeterminism. He rejects the terminology and the consequences for the individual but not the fact.*
However you rationalize it personally, the NSDAP did not see it that way, as has been discussed at length.
2003-06-24 17:57 | User Profile
Hello FW, It is certainly pleasant to hear from you.
As to what I mean:
racialist - One whom believes that race is a biologic reality that has profound effect upon all human activity, that demographics determine the fate civilization and demands racial separatism as a result.
Revolutionary - One fundamentally opposed to the current who advocates drastic and far reaching institutional and cultural changes as a result.
Conservatism - One that places prime importance upon the folkways arising from the sense of collective purpose and identity engendered to a community via genetic homogeneity and history. In short, true conservatism is Folkish/Organic by nature.
With respect to the Conservative Revolutionaries you mention my interest in them is strictly from a limited meta-political sense rather then in terms of ideological content applied to the current situation.
With respect to the "what do" question I would first state that my concern is not just for the West but the whole of the Occidental world. Given the definitions I gave above one can properly surmise that I promote the destruction of the current order and it's replacement by a decentralized syndicalist/corporatist/guildist instructional frame for governance and state. Legitimacy for such an institutional frame work is solely derived from it's ability to foster a societal environment conducive to a collective sense of purpose in the form of folkways and aesthetics that provided for internal cohesion over a great number of generations. In other words, by promoting what I refer to as Tradition. My conception of the particulars stem more from the Marquis De La Tour Du Pin (who spent a great deal of time ââ¬Ënaming the jew'), various Iberian Integralists/National-Socialist-Syndicalists and, f course, my native Nordic Imperium School which was influenced by the other I just mentioned. Some specifics are detailed else where here and at Polinco. If you need any further clearification I will do my best to provide it.
2003-06-24 18:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@Jun 23 2003, 23:14 * *I have also noticed that OD has recently become more 'racial' than paleo...I wonder how Tex and the rest of OD feel about this? **
I agree with AntiYuppie in that racial issues are part and parcel of paleo-conservatism, or any true conservatism, to state it in a broader sense.
But a forum discusses what the majority of its participants want to discuss. Obviously racial issues are at the forefront, but the religious issues also figure very prominently as well. This tells me that these are subjects that folks want to discuss and air their views on, probably because they are so heavily censored at other places.
We have an interesting dynamic here on this board. I still fly the paleo-con banner unashamedly, and I have my pet theories on why that is important, maybe even necessary, to keep the tenor and level of discussion where it currently is.
All in all, I think we've been having a pretty fun ride.
2003-06-24 21:11 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jun 24 2003, 14:19 * **
We have an interesting dynamic here on this board. I still fly the paleo-con banner unashamedly, and I have my pet theories on why that is important, maybe even necessary, to keep the tenor and level of discussion where it currently is. **
TD; I think you've done a fine job of balancing the desire of forum members to discuss racial issues without allowing it to devolve to the level of the juvenile antics on display at VNN or Stormfront. Keep up the good work.
2003-06-25 06:34 | User Profile
Originally posted by triskelion@Jun 24 2003, 17:57 * *Hello FW, It is certainly pleasant to hear from you.
As to what I mean:
racialist - One whom believes that race is a biologic reality that has profound effect upon all human activity, that demographics determine the fate civilization and demands racial separatism as a result.
Revolutionary - One fundamentally opposed to the current who advocates drastic and far reaching institutional and cultural changes as a result.
Conservatism - One that places prime importance upon the folkways arising from the sense of collective purpose and identity engendered to a community via genetic homogeneity and history. In short, true conservatism is Folkish/Organic by nature.
With respect to the Conservative Revolutionaries you mention my interest in them is strictly from a limited meta-political sense rather then in terms of ideological content applied to the current situation.
With respect to the "what do" question I would first state that my concern is not just for the West but the whole of the Occidental world. **
Firstly, I am slightly intrigued as to the distinction you make between "The West" and "The Occidental World" especially since "occidental" is merely the spanish/latin american term for "western".
Be that as it may, I thought it might be interesting to analyze your terminology. One reason why I am ambivalent about the term "racial" is that is an excessively scientific term, whose definition will increasingly be defined, and changed to some extent by the work of social and physical science. It is good to know, and friendy scientists like MacDonald are undoubtedly a great advantage, but I get hestitant about tieing a political movement too much both to the vagaries of the academic world and in a sense competing with it. We use race more in the cultural, rather than scientific, meaning of the term.
Regarding the other three terms on your list, it just brings up an old discussion by Moeller in Das Dritte Reich on these terms
***Values are a matter of grace. The arise suddenly, demonically, when their time is fulfilled. When the rationalist deliberately sets out to "make" values - whethre with reactionary or progressive intent - his creative power fails him. Since men invented the idea of progress there has been nothing but retrogression. The liberal century was upon us.
The conservative justifiably believes that our whole age has gone astray. The revolutionary believes that the world has always been astray until today, and that our only help can come from an entirely new organization of life. The liberal is as always unteachable......he would deny that we owe the misery of Germany and every retrogression in Europe to these principles of his. The conservative n the other hand seeks to discover where a new beginning may be made. e is necessarily at once conserver and rebel. He asks: what is worth conserving? The conservative and the revolutionary have this in common; that they alike despise the juggling, mytey-mongering and pettifoggery that are the liberal's stock-in-trade.***
Given the definitions I gave above one can properly surmise that I promote the destruction of the current order and it's replacement by a decentralized syndicalist /corporatist/guildist instructional frame for governance and state. Legitimacy for such an institutional frame work is solely derived from it's ability to foster a societal environment conducive to a collective sense of purpose in the form of folkways and aesthetics that provided for internal cohesion over a great number of generations. In other words, by promoting what I refer to as Tradition. My conception of the particulars stem more from the Marquis De La Tour Du Pin (who spent a great deal of time ââ¬Ënaming the jew'), various Iberian Integralists/National-Socialist-Syndicalists and, of course, my native Nordic Imperium School which was influenced by the other I just mentioned. Some specifics are detailed else where here and at Polinco. If you need any further clearification I will do my best to provide it.
Good sound logic. All you need is to infuse this blend with the ringing oratory of a Moeller, the sublime mysticism of Spengler, and the brilliant stylism of Junger, and people might start listening to us, instead of the cartoon strip commentators, be it the Faux News, Linders, or ACLiars of the world. :rolleyes:
2003-06-25 10:05 | User Profile
I still fly the paleo-con banner unashamedly, and I have my pet theories on why that is important, maybe even necessary, to keep the tenor and level of discussion where it currently is
Perhaps you could expand on this for us TD? There is an emerging conflict of terminology on this board which often leads us down blind alleys of conflict. For instance I agree with Triskelion on this:
** racialist - One whom believes that race is a biologic reality that has profound effect upon all human activity, that demographics determine the fate civilization and demands racial separatism as a result.**
but not on this:
Conservatism - One that places prime importance upon the folkways arising from the sense of collective purpose and identity engendered to a community via genetic homogeneity and history. In short, true conservatism is Folkish/Organic by nature.
I see no conservative movement in the Anglosphere which even remotely reflects the above. In so far as ââ¬Åpromoting the destruction of the current order and it's replacement by a decentralized syndicalist/corporatist/guildist instructional frame for governanceââ¬Â goes the last movement that did so was Fascism, which was radical not conservative. Conservatism as it currently exists is tied to a free-market economic model and an overweening commitment to conserve the existing institutions of state, whether it be the constitution in the USA or the monarchy in Britain. Frankly I believe the free-market has ultimately led us into slavery and the existing institutions arenââ¬â¢t worth preserving for they have being perverted against us. The folkish syndicalist model is not a conservation of existing practises but rather a radical departure from these institutions and systems which have failed the Occident. Or to put it another way Trisk, your definition of conservative to me translates as ââ¬Ëradical populistââ¬â¢ and if I were to term myself anything other than a White nationalist is would be as such a populist.
One reason why I am ambivalent about the term "racial" is that is an excessively scientific term, whose definition will increasingly be defined, and changed to some extent by the work of social and physical science. It is good to know, and friendy scientists like MacDonald are undoubtedly a great advantage, but I get hestitant about tieing a political movement too much both to the vagaries of the academic world and in a sense competing with it. We use race more in the cultural, rather than scientific, meaning of the term.
I share your concerns FW for some of the ââ¬Ëscientificââ¬â¢ aspects (mis)attached to racialism and the conflicts of interest arising between political morality and dispassionate science. In particular I dislike the elitist eugenics movement. The lesson of the racial Frankensteinââ¬â¢s monster that is the Jew is obviously lost on some White nationalists. Of more interest to me are the empirical, common-sense and historical validations of racialism; all real world experience shows that multiracialism does not work. At the same time I baulk at the use of race in a purely cultural sense. One often encounters terms such as ââ¬Ëthe German raceââ¬â¢ or ââ¬Ëthe Italian raceââ¬â¢ as substitutes for the more accurate labels ââ¬Ënationââ¬â¢ or ââ¬Ëcultureââ¬â¢. The problem with the purely cultural, and current conservative, definition of race is that it has led us to, in AYââ¬â¢s words, ââ¬Å[bury our] heads in the sand and [pretend] that America's problems (including racial and ethnic conflicts) can be solved through ââ¬Ëfree marketsââ¬â¢ and ââ¬Ësmall governmentââ¬â¢." You can take the Negro out of the Jungle or the Jew out of the synagogue but you canââ¬â¢t take the jungle out of the Negro or the Talmud out of the Jew.
2003-06-25 14:28 | User Profile
Nothing, nothing, conservatives value (or even liberals for that matter) means a damn thing outside the European racial context that created their world.
Nicely said, agreed. Personally I believe that racialism is an inherent part of paleo-conservatism.
2003-06-25 17:57 | User Profile
Alka --
Yes. The West is the WHITE WEST. Ya hear, all you paleos? That's WHITE West. Ya see? Not the multicultural West, not the brown West...
2003-06-25 18:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@Jun 25 2003, 17:57 * *Alka --
Yes. The West is the WHITE WEST. Ya hear, all you paleos? That's WHITE West. Ya see? Not the multicultural West, not the brown West...**
How about Bosnia and Kosovo then?
2003-06-25 18:26 | User Profile
Originally posted by na Gaeil is gile@Jun 25 2003, 05:05 * ** > I still fly the paleo-con banner unashamedly, and I have my pet theories on why that is important, maybe even necessary, to keep the tenor and level of discussion where it currently is*
Perhaps you could expand on this for us TD? There is an emerging conflict of terminology on this board which often leads us down blind alleys of conflict. **
NG, my comment was more directed at the psychological dialectic of each participant's activity here on the forum, although the definitions you question are certainly important factors of that dialectic.
2003-06-25 19:32 | User Profile
** Frederick William wrote:
How about Bosnia and Kosovo then? **
Uhhh....not my idea of 'West,' but if they are White they are on the team.
2003-06-26 05:18 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@Jun 25 2003, 19:32 * *> ** Frederick William wrote:
How about Bosnia and Kosovo then? **
Uhhh....not my idea of 'West,' ** Tell me again, what IS your idea of 'The West'?
but if they are White they are on the team.
That's the most definite maybe I've ever heard.
I'll give you a hint - the Bosnians and Kosovians/Albanians are as white as the Croats, Serbs and Macedonians. Now can you answer my question?
2003-06-26 05:33 | User Profile
"[Note that "White countries" includes not only America, Britain, Canada, Germany, Sweden and France, but also Spain, Italy and Greece. "Western" refers basically to White countries west of Poland, but including Greece]." -- WSI website.
2003-06-26 17:43 | User Profile
Hello FW,
With respect to the matter of Occidental rather then Western Brasillach, Steuckers, de Saint-Exupéry, Oliver, Aksakov and many others speak of European man creating civilizations that are not just Western but Byzantine/Baltic/Eastern European as well. I simply reaffirm th obvious that Eastern European nations represent a different but equally valid and worthy strain of European genius, that they confront the same problems of racial destruction and have same need for national restoration. As a result, I accept them as Occidental and greet them as comrades if they accept a minimal ideological foundationalism in common with the struggles of their Western counterparts. In short, I am truly pan European, anti imperialist and favour a great diversity of forms of folkish expression.
As to the scientific substance of the term racial I have no worries. The matter will become more clearly defined in terms of borderline cases and sub-clarifications but no real ambiguity exists with respect to what nations (as I have defined before in the "neither left nor right" article and else where) are populated by European peoples. I see no reason to fixate upon ethnographic minutia as no other racial movements do and their people are easily identified by their own and better off for doing so.
Getting people to listen to us is simple. Be the living embodiment of the antithesis of what your enemies portray you as. That means having real solutions to the problems faced by our people and constantly demonstrate the righteousness of your ideals by sacrifice, critical argumentation and appeals to emotion when needed. As it so happens, I am much better at public speeches and debate then writing in your tongue but one must remember to not use people outside of their strong suits and that means matching the styles of activists with the target audience most likely to be receptive.
It seems that na Gaeil is gile has some problems with my definition of conservative. As I maintain that no current labeled as such within the Anglo-sphere is actively perusing the preservation of European Humanity they are not fit to be labeled as conservatives but rather as less enthusiastic destructors of what we hold dear. I have detailed why free market theology has helped foster our destruction as all forms of economic centralization do in the long run. Economics should serve our societal interests rather then enslave them which is the logical consequence of economic centralization within the current context of high speed travel, communications and the hyper rationalization of production as a guiding principle for society. I have detailed these matters else where and can refer you to plenty of material on the matter.
You mention Fascism (and I presume you mean by that Axis nations in general) yet some over look the fact that all Fascist and National Socialist regimes of the era were very centralized taking a good deal of De Man's notions of Planism and the ultra statist notions of Valois making them quite different then what I propose. Such a notion is radically different then the primacy of society over the state promoted by Labriola, Maurras, La Tour Du Pin, Mosley, the Nordic Imperium School, the Portugese National Syndicalists/Integralists and the "autonomous society" notions of the famous National Socialist theorist/activist/martyr Firmin Bacconnier. As to the centralized Fascist and National Socialist states & movements of the time being "radical" they were to the extent that they overthrew the existing anti-Occidental order ruling Western Europe at the time but because they sought a return to Organicism they were certainly more Traditionalistic then those they over threw or the present order. Those same regimes also made a valiant stand against political Bolshevism from the CCCP and cultural Bolshevism from the U.S. Rather then collaborate with our enemies as the post-American ââ¬Ëright' has done for over two generations.
Obviously, I am not advocating a return to centralized forms of National Revolution as you can see in my ââ¬Ëneither left nor right' article but something much less autocratic and decentralized whose entire purpose is the restoration of Occidental Traditionalism. Given that our civilizations has long been in a state of decay and dispossession simple 'holding actions' are not a feasible means to do anything other then delay our effective destruction. In short, restoration is revolutionary within the current milieu. To act other wise is to assist our march to oblivion.
I share your dislike of eugenics of a more radical nature then what existed in the West prior to the war in the form of anti-miscegenation laws and the selective use of restrictions on marriage and migration. This ââ¬Ëtranshumanism' blather is anti human as Chesterton/Belloc pointed out and totally contrary to the preservation of European humanity. The matter of racial purity is primarily a matter of common sense borne out by science. Please see my comments in my third to last post in the "TR refuted thread" and my earlier comment s here to FW if you need clarification.
2003-06-26 20:24 | User Profile
In particular I dislike the elitist eugenics movement. The lesson of the racial Frankensteinââ¬â¢s monster that is the Jew is obviously lost on some White nationalists.
Could you elaborate on this? What do you dislike about the eugenics movement? This is not a loaded question, as I didn't even know there was such a thing. What is the lesson of the racial Frankenstein's monster that is the Jew? What about it is lost on some WNs?
2003-06-27 00:23 | User Profile
**Even the German conservatives that rejected democracy and liberalism like Moeller, Spengler, and Junger rejected overt racialism. Spengler said "racialism is the lowest form of conservatism". **
True, but Spengler never had to drive through Bedford-Stuyvestant or East St Louis, let alone live there.
2003-06-27 00:43 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Jun 27 2003, 00:23 * > *Even the German conservatives that rejected democracy and liberalism like Moeller, Spengler, and Junger rejected overt racialism. Spengler said "racialism is the lowest form of conservatism". **
True, but Spengler never had to drive through Bedford-Stuyvestant or East St Louis, let alone live there.**
Well as antiYuppie pointed out, while not racist by the standards of the Third Reich, he would certainly be considered racist by today's standards.
The Hour of Decision contains a warning about the "Red-World Revolution" merging with the "Colored-World Revolution" for a combined attack on the remnants of western civilization which seems truly prescient.
So he never drove through Bedford-Stuyvestant or East St Louis. His writings, as with most other Germans nationalists I have read I might add, seem perceptive enough. As a professor once stated elequently in response to someone questioning his openmindedness > when I get up in the morning, I don't have to eat the whole egg to tell if its rotten or not
2003-06-27 00:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by triskelion@Jun 26 2003, 17:43 * *Hello FW,
With respect to the matter of Occidental rather then Western Brasillach, Steuckers, de Saint-Exupéry, Oliver, Aksakov and many others speak of European man creating civilizations that are not just Western but Byzantine/Baltic/Eastern European as well. I simply reaffirm th obvious that Eastern European nations represent a different but equally valid and worthy strain of European genius, that they confront the same problems of racial destruction and have same need for national restoration. As a result, I accept them as Occidental and greet them as comrades if they accept a minimal ideological foundationalism in common with the struggles of their Western counterparts. In short, I am truly pan European, anti imperialist and favour a great diversity of forms of folkish expression.........
**
Interesting post ... you have in many ways read much more on this than I have. Just one little point. I was actually though in my response to Franco not making a contrast of western culture with that of the Byzantine, but that of the Ottoman and the Levant.
Hard-core racialists aren't very consistent here. Why do they all fantically take up sides with the Serbs against the Kosovans and Albanians? It made little sense to me. Especially when the Serbs always claimed they were taking revenge for the Kosovans siding with the Third Reich against the Partisans, of all things. Both the hard-core racialists and even paleo's like Fleming seem to have fallen into Kristol's little trap - of opposing something just cause he supports it.
Going further afield, some theorists find linguistic and racial points of kinship with such peoples as the Kurds and Persians, but I must draw the line at what still seems to me somewhat strange peoples and cultures (I'll leave that to Spengler's "Magian" classifications.
As to the Byzantine, I concur with you wholeheartedly. Indeed much foolish western blood has been spilled in clashes between Byzantinium and the West proper, at Constantanople by the Crusaders, between the Swedes and the Russians in the foolish Baltic State wars, between Finn and Karalien, etc.
2003-06-27 01:05 | User Profile
...when I get up in the morning, I don't have to eat the whole egg to tell if its rotten or not.
But you do have to eat some of the egg, rather than look at a hundred-year old artist's rendition of the egg.
This particular, planned, devolution of the West, I would posit, is something unprecedented that philosophers of earlier eras (and culturally homogenous fixed locations) can only provide limited insight into. Give Spengler or Junger a flat tire during a Greek Week festival and who knows? Sudenly racialism might not seem so declasse to these gentlemen after all....
2003-07-02 04:03 | User Profile
I haven't heard the term paleoconservatism until I came here to OD. I only hope that I haven't hung myself by saying that. I have now become somewhat enlightened by reading these posts. I have also gone out and researched the definition, as well. Now am questioning whether I, too, am a paleoconservative. But, the problem I see, for myself that is, is being categorized as a neo-nazi, skinhead, KKK, etc. I don't think those groups do white nationalism any good as they are a turn off. Whenever I see them or hear of them, I turn the other way. I find them totally disgusting.
On the other hand, I find American Renaissance and CCC more credible. Has anyone spoken to those groups about the possible damage they may be causing to recruit other white nationalists that do support the efforts and issues of WN, but are not budging because of the negativity how those other groups are presenting themselves. Or, perhaps I may be the only one in the forum that feel that changes in WN groups and organizations to best present the seriousness and positve manner that is at question today should be made.
Comments?
2003-07-02 04:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by Lady_America@Jul 2 2003, 04:03 * *I haven't heard the term paleoconservatism until I came here to OD. I only hope that I haven't hung myself by saying that. I have now become somewhat enlightened by reading these posts. I have also gone out and researched the definition, as well. Now am questioning whether I, too, am a paleoconservative. But, the problem I see, for myself that is, is being categorized as a neo-nazi, skinhead, KKK, etc. I don't think those groups do white nationalism any good as they are a turn off. Whenever I see them or hear of them, I turn the other way. I find them totally disgusting.
On the other hand, I find American Renaissance and CCC more credible. Has anyone spoken to those groups about the possible damage they may be causing to recruit other white nationalists that do support the efforts and issues of WN, but are not budging because of the negativity how those other groups are presenting themselves. Or, perhaps I may be the only one in the forum that feel that changes in WN groups and organizations to best present the seriousness and positve manner that is at question today.
Comments?**
Lady, thanks for being upfront about your relative political naivete regarding the issues we discuss on the forum. This forum has a working search function which works pretty good. A keyword search on any of these topics will uncover lots of interesting articles on these topics, with discussions covering the range of viewpoints of our membership.
2003-07-02 05:46 | User Profile
Paleocons are not the way. Half of the time, they do not Name The Jew -- the taproot of the West's problems. WN is the way. Focus on WN and forget the agitprop.
2003-07-02 09:46 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Franco@Jul 2 2003, 05:46 * ** Paleocons are not the way. Half of the time, they do not Name The Jew -- the taproot of the West's problems. WN is the way. Focus on WN and forget the agitprop. **
Just a second - some of us paleocons are WN's.
Unless you wouldn't define, say, Sam Francis as a WN.
Please explain.
Walter
2003-07-02 16:18 | User Profile
Originally posted by Raider of Arks@Jun 26 2003, 14:24 * > In particular I dislike the elitist eugenics movement. The lesson of the racial Frankensteinââ¬â¢s monster that is the Jew is obviously lost on some White nationalists.*
Could you elaborate on this? What do you dislike about the eugenics movement? This is not a loaded question, as I didn't even know there was such a thing. What is the lesson of the racial Frankenstein's monster that is the Jew? What about it is lost on some WNs?**
Sure RoA, but Triskelion has recently raised most of the problems, particularly in relation to the Jew, in [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=7796&hl=]American Renaissance Creates New Discussion Forum [/url].
Also there was a thread on [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=5672&hl=]Eugenics[/url] a while back where I summarised my feeling thus:
**Eugenics should come with a huge label that reads:
"WARNING, this product may cause: Increased instances of neuroticism and outright insanity, increased susceptibility to disease, physical decrepitude, the loss of a worker class and reduction to parasitism."**
2003-07-02 16:22 | User Profile
Originally posted by Lady_America+Jul 1 2003, 22:03 -->
QUOTE (Lady_America @ Jul 1 2003, 22:03 ) But, the problem I see, for myself that is, is being categorized as a neo-nazi, skinhead, KKK, etc. I don't think those groups do white nationalism any good as they are a turn off. Whenever I see them or hear of them, I turn the other way. I find them totally disgusting.* Yeah but we know that already Tom.
**QUOTE** (Frederick William I @ Jul 2 2003, 19:55 )
**QUOTE** (Kurt @ Jul 4 2003, 01:55 )
**QUOTE** (friedrich braun @ Aug 2 2003, 01:22 )
**QUOTE** (Frederick William I @ Aug 2 2003, 11:22 )
**QUOTE** (Prodigal Son @ Aug 2 2003, 01:45 )