What WN wants from Obama and what the SPLC wants are not the same

So ... I seriously over-estimated the white American electorate when, twenty-two months ago, I declared that Barrack Hussein’s boy had made his move for the VP. Who’d have thought that a vacuus appeal to empty minds could rout the governing right? Again.

But I did at least predict that Obama will:-

… divide America like no other, which I presume to be a good. Should the nationalist American, then, hope that Hillary so scares the cattle he actually wins the nomination? Should the hope even be that he strides to victory on November 4th next year over a prostrate John McCain (or Rudi Giuliani)?

The Giuliani thing wasn’t such a great call, that’s for sure. But, anyway, now we’ve got this black - a probable empty suit - and his blacker, angry wife on their way to the White House we can ask ourselves what the result could be for WN.

For all of those twenty-two months the general assumption has certainly been that a black in the White House will create a tidal wave of new support for “the movement”. It seems inevitable. The Obamessiah is bound to experience a little difficulty in blessing his errant people with “change”. Human nature does not change. Radical leftist objectives are never gratefully seized upon by a subject people. They are imposed by force.

But, it seems to me now that a great deal depends on how successfully Obama’s team and the “liberal” media can play on the violent redneck factor, while at the same time confounding white fears of KFC parties on the White House lawn and fresh Affirmative Action legislation before Congress. That could keep the fence-sitters a-sitting and those who become disillussioned with the trope of “change” still convinced of the electoral claim that only white racism is holding America back from a golden new dawn.

Obviously, the media power exists to do this. Indeed, the image of the redneck with a noose in one hand and a sniper’s rifle in the other is already getting the full SPLC treatment:-

From msnbc:-

More threats against Obama since election

WASHINGTON - Threats against a new president historically spike right after an election, but from Maine to Idaho law enforcement officials are seeing more against Barack Obama than ever before.

The Secret Service would not comment or provide the number of cases they are investigating. But since the Nov. 4 election, law enforcement officials have seen more potentially threatening writings, Internet postings and other activity directed at Obama than has been seen with any past president-elect, said officials aware of the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity because the issue of a president’s security is so sensitive.

... One of the most popular white supremacist Web sites got more than 2,000 new members the day after the election, compared with 91 new members on Election Day, according to an AP count. The site, stormfront.org, was temporarily off-line Nov. 5 because of the overwhelming amount of activity it received after Election Day. On Saturday, one Stormfront poster, identified as Dalderian Germanicus, of North Las Vegas, said, “I want the SOB laid out in a box to see how ‘messiahs’ come to rest. God has abandoned us, this country is doomed.”

It is not surprising that a black president would galvanize the white supremacist movement, said Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, who studies the white supremacy movement.

“The overwhelming flavor of the white supremacist world is a mix of desperation, confusion and hoping that this will somehow turn into a good thing for them,” Potok said. He said hate groups have been on the rise in the past seven years because of a common concern about immigration.

From The Huffington Post:-

After the Election

Mark Potok

... Even before the campaign was over, racial rage, clearly driven by fear of a black man in the White House, began to break out around the country. Effigies of Obama appeared hanging from nooses on university campuses. Angry supporters of John McCain and Sarah Palin shouted “Kill him!” at a campaign rally and even screamed “nigger” at a black cameraman, telling him, “Sit down, boy!” The head of the Hillsborough County, Fla., Republican Party sent an E-mail warning members of “the threat” of “carloads of black Obama supporters coming from the inner city to cast their votes.” A reporter who has covered every presidential election since 1980 told me he had never seen such fury. Similar scenes were reported nationwide.

Naturally, the rage also engulfed the radical right. Thom Robb, an Arkansas Klan leader, described for a reporter the “race war” he sees developing “between our people, who I see as the rightful owners and leaders of this great country, and their people, the blacks.” In Tennessee, two neo-Nazi skinheads went further, allegedly planning to murder black schoolchildren, shoot and behead other African Americans, and assassinate Obama. They were arrested two weeks before the election.

A healthy majority of Americans did vote to send Obama to the Oval Office. But, clearly, there are people—perhaps millions of them—who are deeply upset over his victory for reasons that are fundamentally racial. And their anger is likely to intensify as the economy, especially unemployment, continues to worsen.

“Historically, when times get tough in our nation, that’s how movements like ours gain a foothold,” Jeff Schoep, the leader of the National Socialist Movement, a neo-Nazi group with 73 chapters in 34 states, told USA Today. “When the economy suffers, people are looking for answers. ... We are the answer for white people.”

And even in England:-

White rage: The rednecks out to kill Obama

“There’s not any question he’s under more threat than most politicians,” said Mark Potok, one of America’s leading researchers into hate groups who edits a monthly Intelligence Report for the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center. “I think we are seeing a kind of perfect storm of conditions that might well help white supremacist movements grow, and grow rapidly.

“We have changing demographics, and the Census Bureau projection that whites will lose their majority status in America by 2040. We have the tanking economy, and now… a black man in the White House. This makes some Americans feel they are losing their world – the sense that the country their forefathers built is slipping away from them.”

The number of racist hate groups tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Centre has grown by almost 50 per cent during the Bush administration years, from about 600 in 2000 to almost 900 now. In contrast to the 1990s, when the “angry white man” phenomenon fuelled the militia movement and led to the white-supremacist inspired Oklahoma City bombing, much of this new growth has been triggered by virulent hostility to immigrants pouring in from Mexico.

It is entirely possible, though, that the emphasis will change now that Obama is about to enter the White House. Certainly, the neo-Nazi movement senses an opportunity: to judge by the endless chatter on far-right websites, they see a President Obama as the best recruiting tool they’ve had in years. “Obama will be a signal, a clear signal for millions of our people,” the former Louisiana Ku Klux Klan leader and erstwhile candidate for governor, David Duke, wrote earlier this year in an essay he called A Black Flag for White America. “Obama is like that new big dark spot on your arm that finally sends you to the doctor for some real medicine. ... Obama is the pain that let’s [sic] your body know that something is dreadfully wrong… Millions of European Americans will inevitably react with new awareness of their heritage and the need for them to defend and advance it.”

That logic suggests the far right is not, in fact, itching to pull the trigger on Obama. Except that we are hardly dealing with rational people. The neo-Nazi magazine National Socialist wrote a cover story in September purporting to debunk the “myth” that Obama might be assassinated. But the cover also showed a photograph of the candidate in the crosshairs of a rifle (altered to look like a swastika) under the headline: “Kill this NIGGER?” And the piece went on to suggest that Obama, backed by Communists and Jews, planned to commit genocide against working white people.

Likewise, the “imperial wizard” of the Ku Klux Klan, an Indiana railway worker who calls himself Ray Larsen, denied any intent to attack Obama when interviewed on television a few months ago. But he added: “If that man is elected president, he’ll be shot sure as hell.”

Easy for Potok to make WN the enemy of all mankind, isn’t it? And profitable, too. The SPLC has a symbiotic relationship with extreme entities, or nonentities, like the National Socialist Movement. If WN was a responsible movement focussed on a national organisation of a racialist conservative character like Vlaams Belang, life would be immeasurably more difficult for Mo and Mark and Heidi. Indeed, in Europe where nationalist parties are contesting elections it isn’t Jewish front organisations that lead the rhetorical opposition to them, it’s mainstream politicians. That is the measure of political seriousness to which WN must aspire.

We should be looking for change from the Obama presidency, but in the area the political Establishment least expects. If it is capable of reforming itself ... of ceasing to be negative and self-destructive ... ceasing to be a career opportunity for a few “big men”, then WN can meet any appointment with history that may come out of this extraordinary passage in American politics.

The problem, as ever, is how to get to the politically ordinary yet exalted and promising “there” from the desperately frustrating and static “here”.

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, November 17, 2008 at 12:25 AM in White Nationalism
Comments (123) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2

Posted by Nonesuch on November 20, 2008, 01:17 AM | #

danielj, the reason I care is that’s all “white nationalism” is, a sad, disgusting, deeply unattractive joke, filled to the brim with the filthiest anti-human creeps on the planet. That’s why it’s gotten nowhere and that’s why it will not go anywhere. It’s the deepset, unthinking assholism, and not jews, not the liberal media, not the church, that is most responsible for people rejecting racial politics. It shouldn’t be any of these things. Something so right shouldn’t be so deeply repulsive.

Obviously, the repulsive freaks here at MR are beyond hope. You can’t reform them, I guess! And for someone who is so fed up with these disgusting wack jobs, you spend quite a bit of time here, it seems. For someone who has such great ideas, you could always start your own website. Maybe sick fucks like Scrooby could go there and maybe learn something. Consider it charity work. I await you posting the link…

Posted by weston on November 20, 2008, 01:28 AM | #

the reason I care is that’s all “white nationalism” is, a sad, disgusting, deeply unattractive joke, filled to the brim with the filthiest anti-human creeps on the planet.

Let me get this straight. You a.) claim that you sincerely oppose the forced race-replacement of European peoples, yet b.) think that everyone else that does so is an “anti-human creep” and yet c.) choose to spend what must amount to hours per day reading and posting on sites populated by these creeps. I know you think we’re vile, anti-human creeps, but you must also think we’re the most credulous people on the planet to believe all of that crap.

No wonder you don’t realize how far off in la-land WN is. A fish typically isn’t aware it’s “in water.”

You want to talk about no self-awareness? You’re the guy that came here as an anti-white Paki living in England, morphed into an anti-Anglo Serb living in Australia, and then turned into some sort of pro-Nordic Serb/Greek living in Thailand. Now all you do is post about how much white nationalists disgust you, while attacking Scrooby and Holliday. (I’ve probably missed a few of your incarnations, too). You cycle through online personas as if you were schizophrenic. Through it all, however, the one constant seems to be your hostility to white preservationism; as Fred noted, where is the evidence that you oppose the forced race-replacement of European peoples? I haven’t seen it, either. But you’ll continue to insist that you’re sincere, and go right back to attacking all WN as “disgusting”, while inserting gratuitous passive-aggressive attacks on JWH into every other post.

And you profess anger at the fact that some here (all, actually) don’t think you’re arguing in good faith. That is an EPIC lack of self-awareness on your part.

Posted by Captainchaos on November 20, 2008, 02:03 AM | #

Kevin MacDonald, tonight, on Peter Shaenk’s show on Reason Radio Network said that the best case scenario moving forward for America, present trends persisting, is a multi-racial police state. The worst case scenario is is genocide, balkanization and secession. Perhaps a more “hardass” approach will be necessary?

If the worst case scenario comes to pass, if non-Whites start exterminating our people, the gloves must come off. In that case, we have nothing to lose by taking back everything that has been stolen from us by whatever means necessary.

Victory, at whatever the cost to them, at whatever the cost to us, will be ours.

Posted by Lurker on November 20, 2008, 02:21 AM | #

Re Silver.

I still take my cue from JWH.

Posted by Al Ross on November 20, 2008, 09:23 AM | #

silver, you’ve had your time.

Posted by a Finn on November 20, 2008, 12:55 PM | #

Re. There are real obstacles to third parties in Usa. Suggestions:

* Use the obstacles as springboards. Make them essential part of your politics. Say to voters regularly e.g.: “It is the way for the two parties to monopolize power, and take your opportunities away from you. Today you essentially have no choice, they have robbed you blind. We will advocate efficiently multiparty politics and give it maximum publicity at every opportunity. Also we will shift the balance of vote between them, forcing them to adopt issues we advocate. We are your power against this unfair, crooked system.”

* Compensate the extra fees and signatures etc. required with hard work. The harder your activists work for the elections, the more dedicated they become, the more important they see the policies they are advocating, the harder they are prepared to work in the future, the more loyal and tenacious they become (The effect of gruelling initiation rites). You turn the obstacles to your advantage.

* The big parties utilize mass politics and media and they have more resources in it. Fight especially where you are the strongest compared to the corrupted parties. Create locally stronger and more personal networks and nationally more loose networks. Know better the local communities, local politics and their needs. Listen and talk to local people more, shake their hands more. Offer them better food when campaigning. Arrange e.g. funnier events, mocking the static parties with good taste. Find and invest especially in people who are neglected or not adressed by mass politics (Long tail of the Gaussian curve). Create policies that address local peoples needs better and more accurately than mass politics can, but still fit into the national agenda. The national agenda must be resilient to allow this. Coordinate the local policies.

* Create local and national discussion sites where there is often links to outside popular and relevant discussions and swarm them. Repeatedly visit important sites. Be polite, talk matter of factly and be intelligent. No nutty things. In debates alternate between two approaches; scientific authority, with sources and bibliographies, longer texts; shorter more concise texts, easy to remember sentences, parables that evoke emotions and create memories (but don’t exaggerate too much, preserve the matter of fact general feeling of the text). Scientific approach shows your ability and authority. The more concise method with emotions increases motivation, memorization and ignites to action. Try to win debates, but don’t care at all whether your debating partner converts or not. He has often committed to his position by debating you and would lose his face by admitting defeat (there are also additional psychological reasons), so no matter how lousy he is, he will mostly pretend to be the winner or at least not to be the loser. You are debating only for the audience, who don’t participate in your debate. They will see who wins. The concise emotional approach is weighted before elections. Be tenacious in the political scene, you are not opportunistic transient phenomena. This is important in your ability to convince the voters and subvert the media’s misinformation. Link often and everywhere.

Your sites should contain anything from lay to scientific information, moderated comments, entertainment, comedy, music, videos, interesting links, news, advertisements of your events (e.g. civilized meetings in restaurants), dignified outward appearance (increases authority, e.g. comparable to well done prestigious university sites), etc.

Create own blogs to support the cause of central sites.

Use polite primers to action in all your texts, advertisements, meetings, etc. People need ignition. E.g. not: Cultural marxism in the congress: (link); but: Cultural marxism in the congress, click the link: (link). It increases considerably the number of people clicking the link.

Increase people’s commitment by influencing them to do something concrete, saying something publicly, filling and sending a coupon participating in political topic competition, signing a political petition, participating in political event, etc. This changes their self image. People interpret themselves to be primarily what they do. If actions and thoughts are contradictory, actions will generally change the thoughts.

* Advocate any policies that divide, transfer, take away or cancel national powers of the U.S and create a flow of power to local /state level, but are not against your interests. Use also the full extent of the law in local actions, businesses, communities, etc. to create this effect.

* Acquire visible activists to work with you and participate public events with you, who have different interests than you. This shows /underlines that you can advocate other people’s interests, not just your own interests (selfishness /altruism). They could also sometimes represent you to audiences that prefer to hear speeches from them.

* Concentrate the most of your political criticism to visible, obnoxious opponents (persons, institutions, organizations, etc.), who have disproportionately large ideological, psychological, media, vanguard or comparable power, but not necessarily the most direct political power. Criticize also others who deserve it to create balance. The two reactionary parties are almost one and the same, but aim more of your criticism to one of them.

* You must use both the avoidance of bad things, and positive goals /things and good mental images. The bad things are generally more compelling. People fear more losing ten dollars than they appreciate getting ten dollars. Bad things influence people generally more to participate in a group, coordinate their interests with it, increase the separation with the outgroup and oppose it. Bad things are or feel often more concrete.

Positive political goals /things and good mental images increases affection to the group and motivation, and makes it more acceptable and nice. The greatest motivation of humans is what they love; family, kin and extended family, etc.. Be sure to include them to your politics, facts and emotions with good taste. If there are people who are skillful at producing culture, utilize also their talents in expressing positive goals.

* Natural roles in groups and sites. Encourage people according to their predispositions and abilities. Encourage funny guys to become the good taste political comedy writers, scientist types to become the fountains of information, literary types to express emotions of politics and producing skillful political texts, charismatic persons to influence in real life, methodical and meticulous types to become organizers, etc. They can of course participate in other ways also.

* Install donation buttons to political sites. Sell products and /or services. Arrange donation campaigns.

* Study the weak and strong points of the two parties and their machines, and other political entities. Learn their skills. Contemplate how you can leverage and utilize more efficiently your fewer resources.

* Drop the not suitable topics, use consideration. This site contains many comments and articles that are not suitable to politics.

* Use vivid, but relevant topics to produce publicity and raise interest. At the same time direct people to your information sources. Distorted information in the media will turn to it’s opposite, when you constantly educate people to see that media lies, you are logical and can back your information. Criticize liberal media constantly. Encourage people to stop paying money to liberal media

- The two parties are Goljats with feet of clay. You are the Davids.

Posted by a Finn on November 20, 2008, 12:58 PM | #

The person who wrote the lyrics to this song is likely to have known silver or a person resembling him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB7pQpNx-F4

Posted by James Bowery on November 20, 2008, 01:50 PM | #

a Finn, your advice would be touchingly naive if it weren’t so arrogant. You did not understand the links I sent you, you have not looked seriously at the third party efforts such as the Ron Paul’s efforts in the Libertarian party (read the archives—I was on the Washington State Platform Committee for the Republicans because Ron Paul at 72 years of age ran as a Republican after spending his career following your “advice"). In short, your arrogance doesn’t suit your ignorance and apparent stupidity.

Posted by James Bowery on November 20, 2008, 02:10 PM | #

GW: Birthright to the English ancestral homeland is severally received. A spot of unpleasantness in Amritsar long, long ago is not. Likewise, the birthright of white Americans to the land their forefathers made is severally received. The responsibility for slavery in 17th and 18th century America is not.

If I understand what you are saying, it is similar to something I’ve thought about with regard to liability for reparations for slavery in the US, which is that although, contrary to your statement, it is severally received, the “several” descendants of Jewish traders, African Chieftains and Antebellum Plantation Owners to receive that liability is a much smaller “several” than the descendants of the yeoman farmers who created vastly greater carrying capacity in the New World than that which existed upon their arrival.

Of course, this accounting chore is a torturous mess—rife with the potential for courtroom spin from biased historians and stacked juries.

Justice can operate.

I’ve seen precious little evidence of it in the courts when it comes to the justice for the majority: majority rights.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 20, 2008, 03:13 PM | #

Here, by the way (up this morning over at the Vdare.com Blog), is an example of what happens to those who stick with moderation on the immigration issue as Silver counsels us to do: the (fill in the blank) _____ tar them with the “extremist” brush anyway:

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/11/19/numbersusa-peter-thiel-and-the-wages-of-moderation/

Ian Jobling gets tarred with the “extremist” brush to the exact same degree we do here, and has nothing to show for his moderation: his readership approaches zero. Nobody reads him. (Except us, the “extremists.") Are the Jews flocking to his site, as he presumably hopes? If you can call 2½ Jews “flocking” I guess yeah, the Jews are “flocking” to his site: he’s got ‘White Jewish & Proud,” “Jewish Race Realist,” and some guy who bills himself as “Half-Jew.” Yup, Jobling’s got the Jewish readership market cornered with his “moderation” strategy.)

There’s moderation and there’s truth. Where the two coincide, fine, and where they don’t, fine too, I’m up for it. Enough said. Let Silver put that in his “Serbs aren’t white” pipe and smoke it. Silver wants “moderation,” he wants “politeness”? I can out-"moderation," out-"politeness" Silver (or any Jew on the planet, for that matter) any day of the week and in three languages with a pretty damn good showing in a fourth if pressed. You wanna watch me in “politeness” action, you’ll think you were back a few centuries in the royal court of Louis the Sixteenth. There’s a time for that, as well. And there’s a time for stark truth-telling too, and let the chips fall where they may, very sorry for any offense taken but hey we didn’t start this. But, speaking of “time,” time will tell who’ll finish it.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 20, 2008, 04:14 PM | #

Fred,

We do carry moderate material, for example the pieces that David Hamilton sends to me and the more applicable to our interests of those sent by Martin. But for Silver the blog is primarily distinguished by the commentariat, which I am not about to change!

There is only something to be said for speaking to the sleeping leftist in gentle tones if the core message is retained and does not trigger him into hurling the usual abuse. If Silver can pull that off, more power to his elbow. I can’t, and wouldn’t try.

Posted by Captainchaos on November 20, 2008, 05:22 PM | #

Here is a comment addressed to me by one of the quivering lemmings at Takimag:

Captainchaos,

They think anything is good thing if they can gain power and jobs. They have no standards. As far as the loss of a white majority, I look at it as a sort of martyrdom where we must live as an minority group of outcasts. But, we can choose to live as Christians, or die trying.

Posted by Josh on Nov 19, 2008.

Translation: The Jews have my balls in a mason jar on their mantle. If I ask for them back they might not approve.

Here is my response to Josh:

“...I look at it as a sort of martyrdom where we must live as an minority group of outcasts.” - Josh

I don’t hear much fighting spirit, Josh. Why do you think our enemies think they can get away with pushing us around? It’s because we think and act like that.

The absurdity of it is that I don’t have a fundamentally different understanding of what the core problems facing our people are contrasted with the big guns here - yet if I say it they take my posts down. The difference? I refuse to speak in euphemisms. I refuse to pay ANY kind of respect to a structure of taboos that is rotten to its core. And, ultimately, I am willing to die to save my people. In short, I am a White man.

Posted by Captainchaos on Nov 20, 2008.

Translation: Get your balls back from the Jews. Don’t ask permission.

When will these snivelling freakin’ cowards realize that if they think they are beaten they already are?

Hey, silver, any thoughts?

Posted by Guest on November 20, 2008, 05:56 PM | #

Kevin MacDonald paints a rosy picture of the future doesn’t he, who would’ve thought he would go all Pollyanna on us!

When a group has worked since 1880 to dispossess the founding stock of America it probably does pay not to ever mention them. at the very least never to ascribe ill motives to their demonstrable successes.

In England it is a crime to defend yourself. In Australia a judge from the bench told Toben, the truth is no defence

Maybe the good counsel of the mufti approach to White Survival is what people should listen to, Jared Taylor is an excellent example.

Jared’s decision to STIFLE and CENSOR all criticism of the Inner Party is quite an indictment of his character and his courage.

It is like those newspaper reports that will mention, clothing, car, but not the RACE of the perpetrator, all very PC you know and with equally good results.

BNP played it nice and cute with the Inner Party, whilst freely blasting the religion of Islam. Wow that’s brave.

Of couse the following, assassinated, White Man was a bad, bad, bad man.

‘If wanting to preserve White, Western, Christian society makes us Nazis, then by George let’s be Nazis!’
- Commander George Lincoln Rockwell

Posted by a Finn on November 21, 2008, 06:19 AM | #

James Bowery: “… if it weren’t so arrogant.”

- That is all in your head James.

I use your kind words; your arrogance doesn’t suit your ignorance and apparent stupidity. Here is why:

* The suggestions were not intended to be an analysis of third party efforts or details of US political system.

JB: “… Ron Paul at 72 years of age ran as a Republican after spending his career following your advice”

* The advice was not meant to be to the top level, but to the grassroots level and from there upwards. Top-down model is too clumsy, inaccurate and has many of the same problems that mass marketing has in general. In top-down model the support is also too vague on average at the grassroots level. If the supporters create much of the campaign and work for their candidate, the support is more is intense, and thus creates more results and creates new campaigning supporters. The question here is not if this has been done or not, but to what extent and how much would be necessary to reach a tipping point.

I add slightly information about the Finnish 2008 municipal elections and the campaign of Jussi Halla-aho.

Halla-aho is an extraordinary politician. He decided that he don’t campaign almost at all (Very small and insignificant advertising campaign, 2 appearances in party tour events and no election campaign group), he just does what he always does and he becomes elected or not. Media, other parties and “elites” were viciously against Halla-aho and True Finns party. In theory not a promising situation. In practice landslide victory and breakthrough to Halla-aho and True Finns. The explanation is the grassroots support and work combined with Halla-aho’s work through the years.

I certainly recommend intense campaigning to third party politicians together with grassroots campaingning.

The situation is more complex In the United States, but there are lessons to be learned from the Finnish elections.

Posted by Captainchaos on November 21, 2008, 07:55 AM | #

Finn: “The situation is more complex In the United States, but there are lessons to be learned from the Finnish elections.”

I think some of your suggestions are useful for building a bond of trust between individual Whites, their families, still other Whites and their families, and White leaders. The worse the economy gets the more these things will be needed and welcomed. If we help them out they may be more inclined to listen, at least it couldn’t hurt. Even if political office is not achievable, the main thing is to get Whites to begin to think of themselves as a people and to establish a cohesive group strategy.

Posted by a Finn on November 21, 2008, 08:17 AM | #

Captainchaos: “Even if political office is not achievable, the main thing is to get Whites to begin to think of themselves as a people and to establish a cohesive group strategy.”

- Exactly, but political office is certainly possible.

Posted by James Bowery on November 21, 2008, 04:43 PM | #

The emergence of third parties to viability has occurred in the US, but, for example the Republican party emerged under the Civil War over slavery. I would submit the founding stock of the US has been put under the yoke of slavery by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965—if not the denial of the right of States to secede after slavery was abolished in the Civil War. So, yes, a third party is a possibility, but it is very likely to involve very severe events including quite a bit of violence because our present “plantation” is run straight out of Washington D.C.

No, if there is to be a peaceful alternative—it is more likely to involve the kind of activity the Ron Paul folks were engaged in during the last election and are now engaged in with the Campaign for Liberty:

Grass roots—certainly. Using the grassroots to make contact with and form coalitions at the local level—certainly—you haven’t been following my posts here at MR about the Ron Paul campaign starting earlier this year.

We’re way ahead of you. Read up.

But third party?

Not likely if you want to avoid violence.

Posted by a Finn on November 22, 2008, 11:22 AM | #

James, I wrote to at least some of the Ron Paul threads and encouraged people to participate in the campaign in real life, not just in internet.

What to me is important is that pro European-Americans can influence their situation politically, not if it happens with a third party or through Republicans. Grassroots suggestions apply in both cases.

Posted by James Bowery on November 22, 2008, 03:18 PM | #

Speaking as someone who has organized at the grassroots to successfully pass legislation and organized Ron Paul supporters not only to get platform planks passed at the local and state level, but participate in food production as backing for local currency, I can honestly say that you have nothing to offer the US.

Stop stroking your ego on the internet and get back to “the real world” in Finland.

Posted by a Finn on November 22, 2008, 03:38 PM | #

James, you are still nothing to me because of your mean ego and inability to understand the difference between what I wrote here and you did.

Posted by a Finn on November 22, 2008, 09:15 PM | #

Addition to James: As an (self described) vertical individualist, you are the one who has the propensity to stroke his ego.

Posted by a Finn on November 23, 2008, 11:39 PM | #

Short analysis.

Backround; I beat James in earlier debate, thus the former neutrality turned to hostility and he just waited suitable moment of attack. This is, for the most part, his tactic in general.

* He didn’t criticize the content of my post in any way and this time indirectly acknowledged some of it’s value.

* He creates strawmen, e.g. arrogance. When I make suggestions, which anybody can freely either take or leave, it is polite. If part of the readers find useful things from my posts, the posts have accomplished their purpose.

Compare this to James (the second paragraph from this onward).

* He uses ad hominems and exaggerated and incorrect horror scenarios, e.g. universal virulence, likely hoping to cause a situation where the other party starts to fear that his suggestions / information etc. will lead to a bad outcome and thus changes his opinion to suit the will of James.

* When he can’t compete, he starts to list his resume (this has happened many times), that has nothing to do with the topic. With it he tries to establish (ruling) authority and higher social status (at the same time stroking his ego), which are meant to cause general deference to his will and silence the other party. It is not my job to estimate the quality of an irrelevant resume.

* He tries to make debate a national question between Usa and Finland, thus again dragging irrelevant things to the debate. The logic of this is that if somebody believes it is a national debate, people are more likely to not care about facts and just defend the own side, including the manipulating James. He makes sweeping nonsensical statements: “You have nothing to offer the US” This from a man who can’t represent even himself properly, how he could do it for the whole Usa.

Answers to my posts indicate, that at least some European-Americans have found them useful. For every positive answer, there are many more with positive attitude who stay silent.

James, if you want to revenge this post, now or in the future, please do. The pleasure is all mine.

Ps. I am already in Finland, I don’t have to go back to it.

Posted by A son of Arminius on November 25, 2008, 12:58 PM | #

Didn’t take him long to plant his liver lips on Israel’s arse.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=171492&title=indecision-5768

Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2

Next entry: The leaked BNP membership lost

Previous entry: Jonathan Bowden on Marxism and the Frankfurt School

Existential Issues

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

New Right

Science

Whites in Africa