By Eric Paulson | 19 Comments | 
Print
Me and the GOP
Racially aware European Americans generally hold one of three positions regarding partisan politics:
Some see the Republican Party as an implicitly White party that could be accessed and guided toward positions explicitly favoring European Americans. Persons holding this position point to David Duke who ran and won as a Republican in Louisiana, and Derek Black who was recently elected to a party post in Florida.
Others see the Republican Party as hopelessly corrupted by neo-conservatism that toxic mix of globalism and Judeo-Christianity. Any partisan political activity is best directed toward building a third party. They point to the American Third Position, a new party that has enlisted support from several men known for their intelligence and integrity, as a likely vehicle.
Finally, many White advocates believe that at present partisan politics is a waste of limited time and resources. There is not yet the critical mass of support, especially publicly committed support, to make running for office practical. Some who hold this position are so alienated that they refuse to spend even a few minutes biennially to vote for the lesser of evils claiming that not voting is a form of protest.
There is evidence and arguments to support all three of the above positions. To further a discussion on this topic I will recount my recent experiences with the North Dakota Republican Party (GOP).
My first direct contact with the ND Republican Party came in February, 2008. Every four years our state holds party caucuses to select convention delegates pledged to presidential candidates. While I am neither a libertarian nor an enthusiastic supporter of Ron Paul I thought he was the best of a disappointing lot of presidential hopefuls. So I braved below-zero temperatures and icy roads to meet with other Republicans, listen to speeches, and cast a vote for a presidential contender. Rep. Paul did relatively well. He cane in third, and actually won some delegates. Sen. McCain came in fourth in our state caucuses.
To vote in a caucus one needed to supply complete contact information. As a result for the next two years I received a light but steady stream of emails from the state GOP announcing upcoming events and soliciting contributions. Only once did I respond to these missives, that a pithy reply to a particularly muddled editorial in support of neo-conservatism written by the party chairman.
Despite my somewhat frosty feedback to the party in early March I received a notice that my district still had openings for delegates to the state convention. I thought it might be interesting to meet the candidates and see how a political organization operates on the state level. So I applied and was accepted as a delegate.
My agenda for the convention was to speak with the five principle candidates (two for US Senate and three for US House), ascertain their positions on three important issues (immigration, Middle East, and fiscal/monetary policy), and inform them of my own views on these subjects. I managed to speak to four of the five candidates at some length on the above issues.
All the candidates were pleasant, even friendly, but often vague on policy specifics, just what you might expect from politicians looking for delegate votes. If one was seeking a spirited policy discussion he would not get one from these candidates. In fact debate or even discussion of policy issues was a rare occurrence during the convention. One might think that with 1200 political activists in one venue there would be plenty of such conversations. On the other hand if you think back to Poli. Sci. 101 you might remember that American politics is often more about personality than policy and more about image than ideas.
The impressions I did receive on policy positions from the candidates and other delegates were not reassuring. It appeared that at the time (late March 2010) that the GOP was on board with amnesty for illegal aliens. Since then neo-con leaders such as Senators McCain and Graham have found it prudent to put so called comprehensive immigration reform on the back burner. In the future, however, these dogs will not hesitant to betray their European American constituents for political expedience.
Prospects appear even less favorable for a more evenhanded GOP policy towards the Middle East. I found little support for Ron Paul’s less interventionist foreign policy. In fact I heard criticism of the Obama administration for not being sufficiently pro-Israeli (Vice President Biden had recently returned from a rocky road in the Levant). It seemed that the more “Christian” a candidate or delegate was the more likely they were to be a Judeo-Christian Zionist. Honesty, with their talk of a wider war in the Middle East I find these Christian Zionists to be the scariest people on the political spectrum.
As for a sounder fiscal and monetary policy, another issue raised by Rep. Paul during the 2008 campaign, the GOP leadership is quick to give lip service to cutting spending but very hesitant to advocate more fundamental reforms such as regular auditing of the Federal Reserve. I asked Rick Berg, the Republican candidate for our at-large US House seat, specifically about Rep. Paul. I noted the enthusiastic support Dr. Paul has received especially from younger Republicans (Paul had recently won the presidential straw poll at the CPAC conference in Washington). Berg conceded that Ron Paul energizes a core Republican constituency and is an impressive fund raiser, but I could sense the profound reluctance of the GOP establishment candidate to go off script and think outside the box. Whatever his strengthens and weaknesses, and he has both, Rep. Paul is a true maverick. Sen. McCain, the self proclaimed maverick, is more the grumpy opportunist.
During the past year I attended a couple of local Tea Party (TP) events, and I recognized several persons from those events at the convention. I asked them about the Tea Party’s relationship to the GOP. While this is obviously a small sampling it appears the TP is now firmly wedded to the Republican Party. Back in 2009 it seemed possible that the TP would be a radical movement independent of the Republicans, but this has not happened, at least not yet. Although they are having a significant influence on the GOP I predict many Tea Partiers are going to be disappointed with the results of their efforts. It is just too easy for the Republican leadership to give their issues only token support. The elite consensus, supported by both parties, is based on international casino capitalism, big government, and military interventionism all of which preclude serious fiscal and monetary reform. The system will have to go bankrupt before it will change.
So getting back to my original topic: What have I glean from my admittedly brief experience with the GOP? First the Republican organization is permeable, though there are, of course, limits to its inclusion. An activist who chooses the GOP as his medium would need to be politic and use some finesse while still being uncompromising on key issues such as immigration and an America-first foreign policy.
As always the unaffiliated individual is relatively powerless. The best way to get your issues heard is to run your own candidates at conventions and in primaries. This requires one individual to be the point man, a lighting rod. If no individual is available an alternative strategy is to form a group of party activists who would vote as a block at conventions and/or primaries. It would be best to link positions to Republican figures past or present. Such an intra party organization might be called the Buchanan Brigade, Paleo-conservative Caucus, or the Republican Rough Riders.
Up till now I have not mentioned money. It has been pointed out many times that money is the mothers’ milk of politics, the fuel that runs political activism. One needs to open his wallet a bit just to get a seat at the table. That said; remember our cause is starved for funds. I hope no European American would lessen his financial support of an explicitly White organization to support the GOP.
The strategy of infiltrating the Republican Party is not a magic formula for success. As Derek Black is finding out the dominate forces within the party will strongly resist any move toward an explicit White agenda. It will take a stout and sustained effort to have the desired influence on policy. Is the effort worth it? Would resources be better used pursuing another course? The US has had a two-party system almost from the beginning. The last major new party is over 150 years old. These facts show continuity. Yet the parties themselves have changed tremendously over time. One hundred years ago the Democrats’ core constituencies were Southern segregationists and Northern White working men. Many will argue that European Americans will never be able to vote themselves out of the present mess. I agree, but it is difficult to image a realistic scenario for our instauration in which partisan politics does not play at least some role.
Our “movement” is criticized for being long on complains and preaching to the choir, and short on activism. In many regions of this huge country comrades are few and far between. In areas where the Republican Party is the only organization on the right it could be a vehicle for raising issues and networking. This strategy would be a good fit for persons who have excellent interpersonal skills, need to remain within the mainstream, and live in conservative states or districts without other avenues for activism. And remember, this approach does not exclude pursuing other tactics as well.
I very much like the idea of PaleoConservative clubs organized at the Congressional district levl.
Rough Riders, however, is a very bad name. Theodore Roosevelt was in favor of open boarders and empire.
I think the Republican Party is a lost cause. I’m not a libertarian but I agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy, and would like to see less federal government involvement in everything. Also, one can’t help but like a candidate who is so naive as to believe that the politicians in DC still care about the Constitution. I don’t have much faith in the American “democratic” political process anymore–a herd of morons who vote for whatever the television told them to–is not likely to bring about any significant change for the better. The fight will be won by whoever wins the information/education battle. Have lots of children and put them in private schools or homeschool them. Put up more sites like this one on the internet. And for God’s sake, turn off the television. That’s what I think.
Classical liberalism is a cancer on the White race. We need to divorce ourselves from liberalism if we ever wish to succeed. As Kevin MacDonald recently pointed out:
“It seems clear to me that libertarian individualism is indeed a culture of White suicide given the current political landscape. As Whites become a smaller and smaller percentage of the population, libertarianism will become an “okay” ideology for Whites — an officially approved harmless palliative to make them think they are intellectually honest while they sink into the sunset.”
Source:
http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=1988
Our “movement” acts as though liberalism is what it means to be White. I find this ridiculous individualism completely contradictory to our belief in preserving our COLLECTIVE race and culture.
Our individualistic tendencies are literally wiping us out.
But you all continue with our collective suicide and pretend to be protecting our race.
(sorry for the re-post, the first one didn’t come out right with the html code)
Myself, I take a nuanced view of mainstream political activity. Everyone with a brain knows that white ethnic advocacy (or anything tangentially ressembling it) via major party politicking is a lost cause until the shit really hits the fan. However, as a matter of principle (and mental health) its better to be engaged and active, exercising whatever civic agency one may have, than to hole up and complain to the dog about the “naygers” and the “gummint.” I applaud the author for at least doing SOMETHING.
“Finally, many White advocates believe that at present partisan politics is a waste of limited time and resources. There is not yet the critical mass of support, especially publicly committed support, to make running for office practical. ”
Any and all possibly successful strategies require greater numbers than we have so the critical argument is not over what would be the best strategy if we had the numbers but what form of activism is best for increasing our numbers.
If increasing numbers is the primary aim then activism should be directed at activities which seek to:
- turn left-liberals into neutrals
- turn neutrals into conservatives
- turn conservatives into tea partiers
- turn tea partiers into nationalists
- turn nationalists into ethno-nationalists
Practical politics is mostly about talking to people, making a point, and gradually changing their mind one step at a time. Electoral politics, whether mainstream or A3P, or single issue pressure group politics, are all great ways to do this.
Think about the Left or the Greens. Electoral politics isn’t neccessarily about winning. It’s the opportunity to propagandize.
“Our “movement” is criticized for being long on complains and preaching to the choir, and short on activism. In many regions of this huge country comrades are few and far between. In areas where the Republican Party is the only organization on the right it could be a vehicle for raising issues and networking. This strategy would be a good fit for persons who have excellent interpersonal skills, need to remain within the mainstream, and live in conservative states or districts without other avenues for activism. And remember, this approach does not exclude pursuing other tactics as well.”
But it does exclude other tactics because limited “below the radar” resources are misdirected to promoting the idea that we can get our point across subliminally through conventional politics. 70 years of nationalist failure is all that is required to refute this notion. Homeschooling; alternative socioeconomics to include informal and intentional communities, manufacturing, marketing, distribution, exchange mediums, etc.; concentrating on tactics to acquire local political legitimacy independent of conventional politics – these are the only real paths left to us. And time is short.
Forget about Tax/Fiscal Policy and The Middle East, those issues aren’t winners. Put everything you’ve got into Immigration, that is the key issue if we ever get power the other pieces will all fall into place.
If anything, getting rid of affirmative action is also a winner. The wrong people have jobs in America these days and a lot of white men know the score and resent it. Stick with real resentments, like anti-white discrimination and out of control of immigration of unwanted strange foreigners. The other “Ron Paul” type stuff is theoretical and doesn’t appeal to most people at best.
I read sometime ago the “History of Legionary Movement” of Horia Sima. Beyond the grandeur of the style due to the epoch and people many things are amazingly similar.
Anyway, the most important conclusions:
- the necessity to entirely reject the old parties, no matter how brilliant or honest or even heroic some leaders of them might be, because at some moments they might be (and in Romania they were) manipulated by the Establishment – or the Occult Forces as they were calling the traitorous elite; that there is no chance to convert an old politician into a new better one; no chance to change anything as a member of any party – only to get corrupted or bitter yourself
- the necessity of an alternative socioeconomic reality; Corneliu Zelea Codreanu insisted on small enterprises like “legionaries’ deli stores”, “legionaries’ restaurants”, “legionaries’ hardware shops” and so on – the small profit to be reinvested 100%; everything ruled under “The Three Principles”
1. We don’t sell poor quality products here!
2. We sell only the best quality Romanian products!
3. The legionaries are selling only at the right price!
- in order to get money for the elections of 1937 Codreanu launched the “Scrap metal Operation”; he asked help for this from everybody even a child to collect any piece of scrap metal and donate it
- but the most inspiring is the notion of “legionaries construction sites”; even it was about helping poor communities by building a bridge, a levee, a school, a church or even small things as helping somebody really poor (like an widow woman – there were many as Romania lost almost 1 million people in the first world slaughter) to repair his home; these sites were excellent occasions for political education.
Codreanu was stressing the point that “let your deeds to speak for you”. Of course they had a good number of newspapers and magazines. If one was closed another one was ready to go.
If you want to improve the political standing of whites … then we need more whites.
Make love – not war.
So to speak. Oh and no condoms, which sort of defeats the purpose.
All of today’s major nationalist and right-wing populist parties in Europe have proportional representation voting to thank for what success they have achieved. The plurality voting system used in the US drives the debate to the “center” -i.e. the consensus of elite opinion.
Considering the above history-and in light of the fact that there seems to be widespread discontent with the two major parties-it might be a good idea to try to change some state constitutions to get one house of the legislature elected by PR.
In ND you can amend the constitution through initiative and referendum.
Both parties are decaying hulks. When the ZOG-Ponzi economy collapses, they will be swept away by anarchic and organized violence. A hardright coalition, including WNs and led by a charismatic individual, will emerge and seize power. Most everything you see around you will soon be ashes in the wind. Do not invest in it.
“Do not invest in it.”
You don’t need to invest in it. You don’t even need to agree with the party you’re campaigning for. I got myself involved in a local election for a mainstream party a while ago and used the opportunity to talk to 200-300 people about immigration.
Getting involved in electoral politics doesn’t have to have anything to do with electoral politics. It’s an opportunity to talk.
If you have a particular plan you’re focused on then good luck with it but if you don’t and are looking for something useful to do then learn a few talking points and look for opportunites to use them on people.
Getting involved in electoral politics doesn’t have to have anything to do with electoral politics. It’s an opportunity to talk.
People will take you more seriously if you have an actual chance to get elected. More seriously still if you actually do get elected. Look, for example, at the electoral record of the pre-1933 NSDAP.
Do we really need to use terms like “racially aware” or “racially conscious?” Why can’t we just use “socially aware” or “socially conscious?” Taking over the popular discourse and redefining its terms to better suit our interests should be one of our goals.
“People will take you more seriously if you have an actual chance to get elected.”
That is definitely true but i’m making a much simpler point. It’s like you have a choice of two jobs, one is working in some basement on your own and one involves talking to lots of people, if you’re WN and good at talking then taking the second job is better because it gives you more opportunities to talk politics.
I’m saying the same about electoral politics. People often talk about it in terms of achieving something. I’m simply saying you can use it *purely* as a way of getting into political conversations with people.
Just like the Bolsheviks mobilized the masses before their coup with the slogans of “Peace, Land and Bread”, it is better to concentrate on concrete grievances like immigration and refugee resettlement of unassimilable aliens, federal intrusiveness that hampers economic development, leftist indoctrination in the schools and bad state and local tax and spending policies. The state policy should be to find fiscal means to encourage population growth of residents. Immigration should be presented as “ethnic cleansing” or “population replacement” that destroys the social fabric as proved by the liberal Putnam. Higher education should be geared to STEM and liberal arts programs should be downsized.
If you don’t want to just be spitting in the wind PR-probably pure open list PR that contains within itself a second single non-transferable vote election that thwarts the ambitions of party bosses-nurtures small parties and allows them to grow if they have promise. Having one state house elected by PR is a moderate option since the second house and the governor’s veto power provide checks-and-balances. All but one state have bicameral houses and they provide little utility when they are both elected by the same first-past -the-post method under the federally mandated conditions of ” one one vote”-although the SCOTUS mandate requires apportionment by total population, not total voters. The houses become mirror-images under the current system and serve no discernible purpose
as a bicameral legislature.
They could serve a useful purpose if, say, the electors for one house were limited to married owners of significant property over the age of 30. But that sort of arrangement would be struck down by the courts. So a form of PR is the only feasible means of breaking the power of the stagnant duopoly that is ultimately committed to maintenance of the current dysfunctional regime.
icr,
I think you’re right that PR would make electoral politics seem more worthwhile. It’s certainly made it easier for the Dutch, Flemish and Danish anti-immigration parties to get started.
The main problem is that it isn’t 1957. We do not have decades to slog through the political process. The liberals are doing a fine job of destroying the country, so let them finish it. At that point, our time will come.
I encourage people to get involved in local politics and use elections as an opportunity to talk with, meet other White Americans.
My best experience was working on a US Congressional campaign in North San Diego CA – the race is big enough/important enough for most Whites to actually care about the election, but not so big that you can’t have an impact.
I worked as a regular, lowest level volunteer, showed up at events and read the campaign scripts. My candidate was very strong on immigration, other wise he was not ideological, presented himself as sane, able to deliver social security checks and get funding for the Navy. Our opponent was a terrible woman liberal who would give full US benefits to every poor Mexican in Mexico.
Working on this campaign gave me the training on how to go
Door to Door
and speak openly about racially related politics – mostly immigration, but also crime, the media. We all think we can just persuade complete strangers in the first meeting “THE WHOLE RACIAL TRUTH”. And most times we come off as kooks, we turn people off.
By getting this experience on a real political campaign, I was able to practice my presentation, see how best to dress, what subjects to discuss. I am rather large White guy 6 ’2, 220 lbs and I found that going in biker attire, accompanied by a good looking, nicely dressed White female college student worked best. White folks like big bikers “on their side” and attractive, well dressed White college students are people who Whites like to open the door to engage.
I suggest activists here study how Mormon Missionaries go out in to the world to meet, greet complete strangers. The Mormons do a good job and we need to learn to do these things well.