The New Orleans Protocol, 29th May 2004
Posted on: 2004-06-02 19:44:22

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2999

Gathering of White leaders yields historic agreement.

by Paul Fromm (pictured)

On Saturday, May 29, 2004, leaders of groups from three countries struck a historical agreement about future conduct in the post-September 11 era. The protocol was the initiative of former Louisiana State representative David Duke.

The protocol pledges adherents to a pan-European outlook, recognizing national and ethnic allegiance, but stressing the value of all European peoples. The three provisions of the protocols are:

1. Zero tolerance for violence.

2. Honourable and ethical behaviour in relations with other signatory groups. This includes not denouncing others who have signed this protocol. In other words, to paraphrase the successful leftist strategy of the old Popular Front, "no enemies on the right."

3. Maintaining a high tone in our arguments and public presentations.

The founding endorsers of the New Orleans Protocol are David Duke of EURO and The David Duke Report, Don Black of Stormfront.org, long-time writer and activist Sam G. Dickson, John Tyndall (a founder of the British National Party, but not currently in an executive position in that party), Willis Carto of the American Free Press, Dr. Ed Fields, a National Alliance member and publisher of The Truth at Last newspaper, Kevin Alfred Strom, Media Director of the National Alliance, and David Pringle, Membership Coordinator of the National Alliance, and Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association for Free Expression.

Other groups and individuals are cordially invited to sign on and endorse the New Orleans Protocol.

COMMENTARY:

The New Orleans Protocol is, as David Duke explained, “a historical event.” The European nationalist movement across North America, with our allies in Britain and, we hope, elsewhere are committing ourselves unequivocally to the high road: no more sleazy denunciations of other nationalists on the Internet, which can only give aid and comfort to the enemy or to agents of the state; no more stealing of other groups’ mailing lists or members; and, finally, no tolerance of violence.

The New Orleans Protocol in no way seeks to form an umbrella group. It in no way diminishes the independence of any of the endorsers. It does not involve ideological uniformity. All groups maintain their independence and their own particular agenda and emphases. However, all have pledged to behave in a certain constructive way, as outlined by the Protocol.

The zero tolerance position on violence does not make us into pacifists or prevent us from defending ourselves against attacks. However, all foolish talk about aggressive violence is out-of-line. Indeed, the Canadian experience with CSIS agents like Grant Bristow in the Heritage Front is that those urging violence and illegal measures are usually government agents or agents provocateurs.

The Internet is our communications salvation in the face of increasing minority control of mainline means of communication as well as increased state censorship. However, many individuals use the Internet for 'trash talk' and defamation of other groups and leaders. We don’t object to ideological differences or disagreements over methods. We do, however, believe that loose gossip and defamation serve only to assist our enemies. Those subscribing to the New Orleans Protocol are signalling their intention to abide by honourable standards in relations with others in the nationalist movement.

Those who do not come on board are also signaling either a discomforting ambivalence about violence or an addiction to harmful defamation of patriots in preference to constructive advocacy of their views and a concentration on the enemy.

I personally take considerable satisfaction in the New Orleans Protocol as I have promoted and practised the policy of “no enemy on the right” in Canada for the past 20 years. – Paul Fromm

Big surprise.

There's been attempts 'from the top' and elsewhere to make WN more friendly to the 'average person' for years and years now: it's been the single most present motive in WN for the last 20 years at least.

EURO, Stormfront, et cetera... were all borne of this desire, for WN to become more a part of the American (and European) mainstream political process, a mass movement rather than a small and rather isolated one.

(The Europeans have been more successful with it than you Americans, it must be said.)

Anyone who's surprised simply has not been paying attention.

This whole thing is a f***** [edited by Franco; Civil Forum] joke. No violence? The National Alliance would never have been able to buy their compound in WV if it had not been for the actions of a violent group. [let's not suggest in public that NA benefitted from any such action if it cannot be proven as factual in court; can you prove that? -- Franco]

Well, there is a happy medium....the hard part is finding that happy medium, because a WN ideological tactic that appeals to Joe may not appeal to Steve and so on...



-----

Those who do not come on board are also signaling either a discomforting ambivalence about violence or an addiction to harmful defamation of patriots in preference to constructive advocacy of their views and a concentration on the enemy.

This "protocol" is utter nonsense. Furthermore, it's the very height of hypocrisy. The National Alliance, via its Resistance Records, promotes extreme violence against minorities, as graphically demonstrated by its "hatecore" CD covers, which exort their listerners to gas, grind, stab, shoot, burn, and bludgeon every ***** *****, and jew in sight. No slurs, Civil Forum -- Franco

Again, silly nonsense.

They must have had nothing better to do after dessert....

Taking part in elections and looking smart, yes.

But accepting jews and non-whites NO !!!!!!!

Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing.

Reminds me of diplomatic meetings. Always have to produce some white paper or policy statement so it doesn't look like they all sat around and ate a good meal- period.
I'm sure a good deal of energy went into it's drafting. Isn't this forum the embodiment of that protocol? Civility and respect now must be mandated? Assume everyone submits. Now my job detecting character flaws becomes much more difficult. Are they saying what they're saying because it is their position, or because they are trying to make nice? Will also keep alot of important things from being said.
And protocol? Why that term instead of "policy"?
While I admire the effort, the result reeks.

The New Orleans Protocol is the sane way to proceed.

"........ And the no slanderious attacks on any leaders on the right. Is saying no pointing out the facts and truth telling about certain sly operators on the right. Like the jews can skrew you over and are beyond question. Red light to scam.

You just put your finger on the heart of the matter. Nice one.

Notice that they say that anybody not in the cabal is out. LOL there goes any hope of a return to the rightful control of NA. I think the "signatories" should have done a little more "due diligence" before they all hopped in bed together.

As for the tolerating violence gibberish, that would be easily demolished in front of a jury with a reading from TD wouldnt it?

Still, a nice attempt at legitimacy folks and a cute name.

The problem that has motivated this is real: joint civil liability for tortfeasors, and potential criminal liability due to all the informants, provocateurs, etc combined with RICO and other "conspiracy" and "attempt" laws.

The smarter thing to do, would be for the "membership orgs" to disband and form looser associations. Metzger has said pretty much all that needs to be said about this years ago and the blight wingers fail to take lessons from his experiences.

The smarter thing to do, would be for the "membership orgs" to disband and form looser associations. Metzger has said pretty much all that needs to be said about this years ago and the blight wingers fail to take lessons from his experiences.


The funny thing is that none of the folks who thought this up apparently considered that New Orleans is associated with orgies and third-world-level crime, not decorum and non-violence.

Can you say, "Not ready for prime time"?

They can say and sign whatever they want; I judge them by their actions, which tend to be sleazy and behind the scenes.

http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=14034

Scroll down to Hugh Lincoln's remarks. His first point is exactly what I thought when I read the very disappointing "Protocol":

"Seems reasonable, though perhaps too much so. On the one hand, who, exactly, is this directed at? If you're trying to build a "respectable" movement, the first step is to pretend it never was unrespectable. The slightest hint that there may have been, or that some adherents were considering it, sinks you from the get-go. It kinda reminds me of a memo circulated at a government office I once worked in: People, please do not wear "do-rags" to the office. See, the very fact that you'd have to have a memo like that at all pretty much reveals your loser status."

Alex, have you ever tried talking to Texas Dissident? He seems to have a strong dislike for you, mainly because of your views regarding Christianity.

http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=14034

Scroll down to Hugh Lincoln's remarks. His first point is exactly what I thought when I read the very disappointing "Protocol":

"Seems reasonable, though perhaps too much so. On the one hand, who, exactly, is this directed at? If you're trying to build a "respectable" movement, the first step is to pretend it never was unrespectable. The slightest hint that there may have been, or that some adherents were considering it, sinks you from the get-go. It kinda reminds me of a memo circulated at a government office I once worked in: People, please do not wear "do-rags" to the office. See, the very fact that you'd have to have a memo like that at all pretty much reveals your loser status."

Alex, have you ever tried talking to Texas Dissident? He seems to have a strong dislike for you, mainly because of your views regarding Christianity.

I have, some. He has a way I don't like. He has trouble attacking directly like a man; his preference is for veiled attacks, where he pretends to be objective, or even trying to help the object. Also, the folks at his site who criticize me are mostly anonymous, and I don't know or trust their motives. They seem willfully to misunderstand what I say. That's a a flag they're not there to discuss, but to smear. I prefer this forum. Debating Christians who will neither acknowledge the evils their church is responsible for, nor acknowledge that not all their White opponents are interested in destroying their religion, is not worth my time. The very best religious folks out there, say E. Michael Jones, can live with an America that is 90% non-White, as long as most of those non-Whites are Catholics. I can't live with that America, and that is a vital difference between our camps. Race comes first; religion and the rest come last. I'll be writing more on this in coming days, in reaction to some stuff in his latest "Culture Wars" mentioning Kievsky and me and others in the Griffin book.

Alex, have you ever tried talking to Texas Dissident? He seems to have a strong dislike for you, mainly because of your views regarding Christianity.

Texas Dissident and his Original Dissent forum have hopped in bed with Stormfront - meaning they're apt to delete your posts if you're too critical (read: tell the truth) of either Donny's hang-out or Gliebe's scam operation. They completely deleted mine, merely for pointing out the NA's hypocrisy in forging this so-called "Protocol" when they themselves have no intention of living up to it. Presto zingo! My Original Dissent posts are suddenly gone. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Texas Dissident, for confirming your cowardice in confronting the truth head on. Unfortunately, I cannot unleash my full wrath against you, since this is the "Civil Forum" of VNN's Forum. So I have to be polite to you. That's not true in the other forums of VNN, however. Show up there and it will be a different matter altogether...

Again, Original Dissent has become "Stormfront Light", moderated by cowardly little men who, when faced with a formidable opponent, silence rather than debate. Alex Linder would eventually be silenced there as well, were he to try any attempt at real debate with these mental midgets.

Texas Dissident and his Original Dissent forum have hopped in bed with Stormfront - meaning they're apt to delete your posts if you're too critical (read: tell the truth) of either Donny's hang-out or Gliebe's scam operation. They completely deleted mine, merely for pointing out the NA's hypocrisy in forging this so-called "Protocol" when they themselves have no intention of living up to it. Presto zingo! My Original Dissent posts are suddenly gone. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Texas Dissident, for confirming your cowardice in confronting the truth head on. Unfortunately, I cannot unleash my full wrath against you, since this is the "Civil Forum" of VNN's Forum. So I have to be polite to you. That's not true in the other forums of VNN, however. Show up there and it will be a different matter altogether...

Again, Original Dissent has become "Stormfront Light", moderated by cowardly little men who, when faced with a formidable opponent, silence rather than debate. Alex Linder would eventually be silenced there as well, were he to try any attempt at real debate with these mental midgets.

What's going on is Kevin Strom and the NA are trying to rope in anyone they can to shun me and VNN. They're trying to claim that they're the only real representatives of the White race in America. The nature of Stormfront/NA is girlishly cliquish and hypersensitive. Like the jews they criticize, they want it both ways: absolute freedom to attack anyone they don't like, right along with absolute refusal to hear any criticism of themselves. Dishonorable Strom is discovering it doesn't work like that.

Do you know where Kevin Strom's kids are tonight? Neither does he!

Save the White race? But Dishonorable Strom, you can't even keep a family together.

Gathering of White leaders yields historic agreement.

by Paul Fromm

BY A. LINDER

On Saturday, May 29, 2004, leaders of groups from three countries struck a historical agreement about future conduct in the post-September 11 era. The protocol was the initiative of former Louisiana State representative David Duke.

SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BONE UP ON DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'HISTORICAL' AND 'HISTORIC.'

The protocol pledges adherents to a pan-European outlook, recognizing national and ethnic allegiance, but stressing the value of all European peoples.

The three provisions of the protocols are:

1. Zero tolerance for violence.

"ARYANS PROMISE TO SHOW UP WITH KNIFE AT GUNFIGHT." ZOG WILL BE HAPPY TO HEAR THAT. SMART ARYANS WILL PAY ATTENTION TO ZOG'S ACTIONS AT WACO, AND THE WORDS OF SUPREME COMMANDER EISENHOWER: "BE SLOW TO SAY WHAT YOU WILL DO, AND NEVER SAY WHAT YOU WON'T."

2. Honourable and ethical behaviour in relations with other signatory groups. This includes not denouncing others who have signed this protocol. In other words, to paraphrase the successful leftist strategy of the old Popular Front, "no enemies on the right."

CONTINUE TO SMEAR NON-SIGNATORIES. "BUSINESS AS USUAL." POLITE FACE IN PUBLIC, DIRTY TRICKS IN PRIVATE. SAME-OLD SAME-OLD.

3. Maintaining a high tone in our arguments and public presentations.

NOTE THE WORDING. NA PROMOTES THE BLOODIEST, MOST SLUR-LADEN, MOST VIOLENT MATERIAL IMAGINABLE NOT JUST IN THE "MUSIC" PEDDLED THROUGH RESISTANCE RECORDS, BUT IN THE VERY THING THAT PUT THE GROUP ON THE MAP, WILLIAM PIERCE'S THE TURNER DIARIES. THESE GUYS WHINE THAT VNN USES EPITHETS AND SLURS, WHILE SELLING WHITE POWER ROCK THAT IS NOTHING BUT. AS LONG AS IT FILLS NA COFFERS, IT'S PERFECTLY FINE. ITZ ALL ABOUT THE JEWISH PAPER. THE LONG GREEN CAN USE ANY WORDS IT LIKES, NO PROBLEM, SAYS DISHONORABLE HYPOCRITE KEVIN STROM.

The founding endorsers of the New Orleans Protocol
'FOUNDING ENDORSERS,' GOOD LORD. GET A GRIP, GUYS.
are David Duke of EURO and The David Duke Report, Don Black of Stormfront.org, long-time writer and activist Sam G. Dickson, John Tyndall (a founder of the British National Party, but not currently in an executive position in that party), Willis Carto of the American Free Press, Dr. Ed Fields, a National Alliance member and publisher of The Truth at Last newspaper, Kevin Alfred Strom, Media Director of the National Alliance, and David Pringle, Membership Coordinator of the National Alliance, and Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association for Free Expression.
Other groups and individuals are cordially invited to sign on and endorse the New Orleans Protocol.

THE PROTOCOL IS UNNECESSARY AND POORLY NAMED.

POORLY NAMED BECAUSE NEW ORLEANS CONNOTES MARDI GRAS, WHICH IS TO SAY, WILD PARTYING. BEYOND THAT, IT'S KNOWN FOR CRIME. NOT THE WORDS YOU WANT ASSOCIATED WITH A PROTOCOL AIMED AT TIDYING UP YOUR PUBLIC IMAGE. IT IS A MEASURE OF THE GENERAL COMPETENCE OF THE SIGNERS THAT NONE OF THEM PICKED UP ON THIS.
UNNECESSARY BECAUSE A PROTOCOL ISN'T NEEDED FOR NATIONAL ALLIANCE TO QUIT LYING AND SMEARING OTHER GROUPS, JUST HONORABLE LEADERS. AS LONG AS NA CONTINUES TO SPREAD LIES ABOUT VNN IN PRIVATE, WE'LL CONTINUE TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT IT IN PUBLIC, FOOLISH 'PROTOCOL' BE DAMNED.

FINALLY, THE PROTOCOL IS FOOLISH BECAUSE ITS EXISTENCE IMPLIES A NEED. I FEEL NO SHAME IN MY WORDS OR ACTIONS BEFORE A JEW-CONTROLLED GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA WHICH SMEAR MY NAME AND PEOPLE AROUND THE CLOCK AS "WHITE TRASH." THIS PROTOCOL PLAYS DIRECTLY INTO THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO STEREOTYPE US AS ILLITERATE LOSERS. IT ACKNOWLEDGES PROBLEMS THAT DO NOT EXIST, AND COVERS UP THE PROBLEMS THAT DO. IF YOU FEEL THE NEED TO IMPROVE YOUR BEHAVIOR, NOP SIGNERS, WHATZ STOPPING YOU? I UNDERSTAND WHY THE STROMS FEEL THE NEED TO APOLOGIZE FOR THEIR SHABBY ACTIONS, BUT IS IT REALLY NECESSARY TO SIGN A PAPER IN PUBLIC? YOU'RE EMBARASSING THE REST OF US AND MAKING OUR TASK MORE DIFFICULT. JUST QUIT ACTING LIKE SHITS, AND THE REST OF US WILL SAY "JOB WELL DONE."

COMMENTARY:

The New Orleans Protocol is, as David Duke explained, "a historical event."

YEAH, AND SO'S THE FART I JUST LET OFF. THE TERM HE SEEKS IS 'HISTORIC.' WHAT A SHAME NOBODY PICKED UP ON THIS. AFRAID TO SPEAK UP, PERHAPS? INCOMPETENT TOTALITARIANISM IS NO PANACEA FOR ARYANS. WHITE LIBERTY IN THE CONTEXT OF RACIAL DICTATORSHIP IS THE RECIPE FOR SUCCESS.

The European nationalist movement across North America, with our allies in Britain and, we hope, elsewhere are committing ourselves unequivocally to the high road: no more sleazy denunciations of other nationalists on the Internet, which can only give aid and comfort to the enemy or to agents of the state; no more stealing of other groups' mailing lists or members; and, finally, no tolerance of violence.

CHARACTERISTIC DISHONESTY: THE PROTOCOL ONLY COVERS SIGNERS; NOT A WORD IS SAID ABOUT DISCONTINUING THE SMEARING OF NON-NA GROUPS, WEBSITES AND INDIVIDUALS. WHICH IS IT, FROMM? IT IS THE HEIGHT OF JEWINESS TO PRETEND THE PROTOCOL BANS THE SMEARING OF NON-SIGNERS WHEN IT FACT IT POINTEDLY EXCLUDES THEM FROM PROTECTION. HONEST ARYANS KNOW THAT HISTORY SHOWS YOU CAN RELY ON THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE TO DO THAT WHICH BRINGS IT MONEY; BEYOND THAT, NOTHING.

The New Orleans Protocol in no way seeks to form an umbrella group. It in no way diminishes the independence of any of the endorsers.

WHEN YOU CONSTRAIN THE FORM BY WHICH A MAN EXPRESSES HIMSELF, YOU DIMINISH HIS INDEPENDENCE AND USURP HIS FREEDOM. THE PEOPLE WHO CONTROL THE MEDIA USE SLURS AND VICIOUS, ANTI-WHITE STEREOTYPES DAY IN AND DAY OUT. SLURS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM AND HYPOCRITES IN BUSINESS SUITS ARE NOT THE SOLUTION.

It does not involve ideological uniformity. All groups maintain their independence and their own particular agenda and emphases. However, all have pledged to behave in a certain constructive way, as outlined by the Protocol.

'CONSTRUCTIVE' IS AN OPINION, NOT A FACT. THE JEWS' MEDIA ARE ONE MILLION TIMES MORE POWERFUL THAN THE EFFORTS OF THE SIGNERS OF THIS PROTOCOL. LOGIC TELLS YOU THERE'S NO CORRELATION BETWEEN ABSTAINING FROM SLURS AND SUCCESS, AND THAT IN FACT THE CORRELATION MAY WELL RUN IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. THE JEWS USE SLURS AND EPITHETS AS REGULAR PRACTICE. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO STICK TO CAREFUL REMONSTRATING, JUST LIKE THE FECKLESS CONSERVATIVES? NO. THE READING ARYAN PUBLIC HAS NO PROBLEM WITH SLURS; ITS PROBLEM IS NOBODY REPRESENTS ITS INTERESTS.

The zero tolerance position on violence does not make us into pacifists or prevent us from defending ourselves against attacks. However, all foolish talk about aggressive violence is out-of-line. Indeed, the Canadian experience with CSIS agents like Grant Bristow in the Heritage Front is that those urging violence and illegal measures are usually government agents or agents provocateurs.

BEING WARY OF THOSE WHO APPROACH US ADVOCATING VIOLENCE AND RENOUNCING VIOLENCE CATEGORICALLY AS A WAY TO OVERTHROW THE MOST TYRANNICAL SYSTEM IN HISTORY ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS. WHAT DOES 'STAYING LEGAL' MEAN UNDER A TYRANNY THAT DOESN'T FOLLOW THE LAW? IT MEANS DAVID DUKE AND THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE COMMIT THEMSELVES TO OBEYING RULES SET UP TO INSURE THE GENOCIDE OF THE ARYAN RACE. THIS MAY BE UNDERSTANDABLE FOR THE HEADS OF A FOR-PROFIT PRIVATE COMPANY SUCH AS THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE, BUT ARYANS WILL DO WELL TO STEER CLEAR OF SILLY ABSTRACT AND ABSOLUTE COMMITMENTS TO ANY COURSE OF ACTION.

The Internet is our communications salvation in the face of increasing minority control of mainline means of communication as well as increased state censorship. However, many individuals use the Internet for 'trash talk' and defamation of other groups and leaders. We don't object to ideological differences or disagreements over methods.

YES, IN FACT YOU DO. YOU BELIEVE YOUR WAY IS THE RIGHT WAY -- EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO ATTACKING OTHERS WHO DISAGREE, WHO ARE FAIR GAME UNDER YOUR PROTOCOL. WHAT YOU SEEK IS NOT THE HIGH ROAD, BUT PROTECTION AGAINST CRITICISM OF YOURSELVES WHILE PRESERVING YOUR FREEDOM TO UNDERMINE OTHERS BY WHICHEVER MEANS SEEMS MOST EXPEDITIOUS. THE STANDARD STROM HYPOCRISY SHINES THROUGH. UNDER YOUR PROTOCOL IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIM AS A "SIDEWINDER," TO QUOTE HIS WIFE. YOU SEEK TO KEEP FROM HONEST ARYANS INFORMATION THEY NEED TO MAKE DECISIONS, JUST AS THE JEWS DO. ARYANS WILL HAVE NONE OF IT.

We do, however, believe that loose gossip and defamation serve only to assist our enemies. Those subscribing to the New Orleans Protocol are signalling their intention to abide by honourable standards in relations with others in the nationalist movement.

AGAIN, QUIT STROMMING & FROMMING THE TRUTH. THE PROTOCOL VERY POINTEDLY SAYS THAT ONLY SIGNERS ARE COVERED. THE PROTOCOL IS AN ARROGANT ARROGATION; AN ATTEMPT TO CLAIM THAT ONLY THE SIGNERS REPRESENT ARYANS AND ARYAN INTERESTS, AND THAT ALL OTHERS ARE PRETENDERS WHO MAY FREELY BE ABUSED. BUT YOU DO NOT REPRESENT ARYANS. YOU WHO SIGN THIS FOOLISH DOCUMENT REPRESENT NO ONE BUT YOURSELVES.

Those who do not come on board are also signaling either a discomforting ambivalence about violence or an addiction to harmful defamation of patriots in preference to constructive advocacy of their views and a concentration on the enemy.

PAUL FROMM WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO DEFINE OTHERS' BEHAVIOR TO SUIT HIS INTERESTS. PAUL FROMM REPRESENTS PAUL FROMM ONLY. THE REFUSAL TO SIGN THE 'NEW ORLEANS' PROTOCOL SIGNALS NOTHING, BECAUSE THE PROTOCOL ITSELF MEANS NOTHING.

I personally take considerable satisfaction in the New Orleans Protocol as I have promoted and practised the policy of "no enemy on the right" in Canada for the past 20 years. - Paul Fromm

IT'S ALL ABOUT HOW YOU FEEL, PAUL, NOT WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF ARYANS GENERALLY, WHICH THIS PROTOCOL IS NOT.

Ahh, a breath of fresh air to read. Freedom is great. The freedom to be able to point out dishonesty and stupidity and hypocrisy, point by point. These would-be dictators would like to make it impossible for us to do so. But they won't succeed, just like the jews they ape won't. "Nothing that is founded on lies will endure." - Adolf Hitler.

1. Zero tolerance for violence.

"ARYANS PROMISE TO SHOW UP WITH KNIFE AT GUNFIGHT." ZOG WILL BE HAPPY TO HEAR THAT. SMART ARYANS WILL PAY ATTENTION TO ZOG'S ACTIONS AT WACO, AND THE WORDS OF SUPREME COMMANDER EISENHOWER: "BE SLOW TO SAY WHAT YOU WILL DO, AND NEVER SAY WHAT YOU WON'T."


Alex, in the "Hobbyists versus Activists" thread you indicated that you know exactly what this provision is about, in spirit if not in letter. "Anyone who comes to you advocating violence is probably an agent." On an organizational level, violence is never an answer. An organization cannot tolerate its members publicly advocating or participating in any act of violence. Thus, the organizations adhering to the NOP have a policy of "Zero tolerance for violence." This doesn't mean to back down when your back's against the wall. This doesn't mean not to stock up on ammo. It just means that, for a legally existing organization in the 'Kwa, violence cannot be tolerated.

I know that you understand this already. And I know that in your articles you need to be extreme -- uniformly so. But I can't help but feel that you're being somewhat intellectually dishonest here. You're purposely taking a non-nuanced view of a statement designed to be simplistic in wording but with layers of meaning based upon one's knowledge of the context. You have full knowledge of the context of the statement, but you ignore the implicit qualifications that necessarily accompany that statement when one is aware of the context.

It's kind of like the Jews and "Thou shalt not kill." All Jews know that this commandment actually means "Thou shalt not kill another Jew." Which, obviously, is not *technically* what the commandment says, but it's the true intended meaning of the commandment. Knowledge of context gives greater knowledge of meaning.

Can I condone such Jewishness on the part of "our" "leaders"? Well, yes and no. I think that ideally they should have been more specific about exactly what they mean by "zero tolerance for violence." However, at the same time I can see the PR value of having such an unqualified statement in some well-known document. It's kind of like they're beating the Jews at their own game. But does it diminish what we're fighting for if we have to resort to Jewish tactics? Yes, but isn't survival better than destruction? Or does honor mean more than survival? Or is it possible both to keep our honor and to survive? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I've certainly arrived at these questions repeatedly as I've struggled to figure out exactly what the hell I'm supposed to do to help save our race.

You're missing my point. They shouldn't say ANYTHING about the subject. Nothing they say will help them legally; anything they say WILL be used against them. It's a defensive, hypocritical and ultimately disingenuous statement that does nothing but aid lawyers looking to take these men and their groups down. They got lost in the excitement of the moment, it being a 'historical' event and all - you know, like the Constitutional Congress. Cooler heads should have but did not prevail. The stuff in the protocol could have and should have been discussed and arranged in private. Now it's just more paper for a paper trail.

National Alliance is not a political group, it is a private company looking to make a profit. If anybody from the NA tells you different, he's lying. So why would anyone think the NA would be violent? All this misguided statement does is provide ammunition to the prosecuting attorney who will rightly point out that, hey, you sure seem to be worried about something!

It doesn't help, and so it hurts.

Questions of violence start and end with ZOG. ZOG is the violent party. ZOG is the one that cannot defend its actions. Our side should NEVER defend, ALWAYS attack. Don't make stupid-ass statements that 1) mean nothing legally 2) aren't enforceable anyway and 3) aid the enemy. Rather, focus on what the enemy has done and never let up. **** talking about what some vague "we" will or won't do. Have you seen what ZOG did to Randy Weaver? to the innocents at Waco? Did you know ZOG had an agent provacateur set up, train, and direct the McVeigh cell?

Apart from Linder's excellent BTL, I can only add that I can't imagine how any honorable Aryan could agree in advance not to criticize anyone. If someone asked me not to criticize him I'd first have to ask 2 questions:

What have you done?
What are you planning on doing?

Quoted from the National Alliance website: "The structural details of a new government are important, but they are not a matter of principle. One might even get the job done by continuing with mass democracy, simply by replacing the people who control the mass media with Alliance members..."

The National Alliance clearly views itself as one day controlling America's mass media, so it comes as no wonder that today - on a much smaller scale - it seeks to control every white nationalist mind and organization via its New Orleans Protocol.

The thought of the NA controlling the mass media is terrifying. True, it wouldn't be "Jew controlled", but it would be every bit as full of manipulations and lies under the iron grip of the NA as it is now under the Jews. That's because the NA doesn't want what the rest of us are fighting for - a free America where there's room for Alex Linders in the media, or Billy Ropers, or even Tom Metzgers. No, they want the whole enchilada - both in the future and right now - and the New Orleans Protocol is their first step towards that greed-driven goal.

With that said, here's a new motto Kevin Strom should post at the top of the NA's website: "Join Us - Or Else".

great BTL alex. too clever by half is how it all strikes me a week later.

NO must have been a great opportunity to do what Metzger has been calling eat, meet, and retreat. Or I call, Eat meat and retreat.

best defense is a good offense. where is the offense in the NOP? NOT. The could have just as well called it the NOT-- new orleans terms. Terms of surrender.

You guys spend more time bashing your fellow white patriots than you do the Kwa. If you guys have the proper formula for igniting the revolt implement it and just forget about those other groups. Instead you spend all your time complaining, gossiping, sniping, backbiting, swearing, threatening, accusing, slandering. It's pathetic. :rolleyes:

You're missing my point. They shouldn't say ANYTHING about the subject. Nothing they say will help them legally; anything they say WILL be used against them. It's a defensive, hypocritical and ultimately disingenuous statement that does nothing but aid lawyers looking to take these men and their groups down. They got lost in the excitement of the moment, it being a 'historical' event and all - you know, like the Constitutional Congress. Cooler heads should have but did not prevail. The stuff in the protocol could have and should have been discussed and arranged in private. Now it's just more paper for a paper trail.

National Alliance is not a political group, it is a private company looking to make a profit. If anybody from the NA tells you different, he's lying. So why would anyone think the NA would be violent? All this misguided statement does is provide ammunition to the prosecuting attorney who will rightly point out that, hey, you sure seem to be worried about something!

It doesn't help, and so it hurts.

Questions of violence start and end with ZOG. ZOG is the violent party. ZOG is the one that cannot defend its actions. Our side should NEVER defend, ALWAYS attack. Don't make stupid-ass statements that 1) mean nothing legally 2) aren't enforceable anyway and 3) aid the enemy. Rather, focus on what the enemy has done and never let up. Fuck talking about what some vague "we" will or won't do. Have you seen what ZOG did to Randy Weaver? to the innocents at Waco? Did you know ZOG had an agent provacateur set up, train, and direct the McVeigh cell?

You make some pretty convincing arguments, but I can still see why the NOP signers had that statement in the NOP. In the eyes of lemming Americans, a pledge to struggle non-violently for justice is very noble. It's the culmination of a conference designed solely to get media attention and good PR. These groups are trying to legitimize themselves with the White public, and disavowing violence (as an organization) is a big step in that direction, the first step of weaning the public off of the image of "violent Nazi thugs" who sadistically take pleasure in others' pain and who murder and terrorize for no reason.

We all know that we, as WNs must fight for our survival in every sense of the term -- including employing violence when necessary. However, for the large above-ground organizations to ever gain any traction with the public, they must take the non-violent route. The NOP was aimed at lemmings, I think it will be effective if it ever manages to reach them.

You make some pretty convincing arguments, but I can still see why the NOP signers had that statement in the NOP. In the eyes of lemming Americans, a pledge to struggle non-violently for justice is very noble.

No, they play that up when it's their noble negroes striving peacefully for simple justice. They don't care what we say or how we present ourselves, they have their frame going in. We might feed into the image they seek to portry more or less, and they'll use us to that extent, but we are the one group never allowed to define itself. Thus, Duke is forever known as "ex-Klansman," and NA is the organization started by the guy who wrote the book that inspired McVeigh. Regardless of the fact that McVeigh said he was inspired by the feds' actions at Waco.


It's the culmination of a conference designed solely to get media attention and good PR.

It hardly got any coverage at all, and it banned the one person who would have written a full and detailed report - me. Just as I did for the Sacramento Conference. All this under the banner of "unity." I don't like shellspeak from whites any more than from jews.

If that meeting in NO was about good PR, it failed miserably. I doubt 20 people outside this community even saw that NOP in it's entirety. While the intent may have been cohesion, the result is division. My mother says the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Who "pre-assumed" this would fly?

I can still see why the NOP signers had that statement in the NOP. In the eyes of lemming Americans, a pledge to struggle non-violently for justice is very noble. It's the culmination of a conference designed solely to get media attention and good PR.

That statement is also very Stromish. They sit atop the NA which is their milk and honey and don't want anything to happen that might jeopardize that. But when you consider that revolutions are not mass phenomena nor do they present zero danger to the participants such a statement as with the NA's entire plan to power is a complete sham. There is no substance there that would lead to anything fruitful or which would resemble "progress" or a "goal" to be fulfilled.

I found the time last night to listen to every recorded speech from the NOP conference, and took particular note of what Don Black said about it being "a lot easier now" to decide whom Stormfront would endorse - and whom it would not - as if endorsements from that heavily NA-biased forum had been equally applied to all groups and organizations up to that time. As many of us already know, Stormfront has been favoring the National Alliance for several years now, while ruthlessly silencing anyone daring to point out the NA's many deceits and hypocrisies. Also, as Alex Linder has already noted, the New Orleans Protocol promises to refrain from attacking ONLY those who have signed it - implying that those who haven't are fair game for such attacks. Anyway, at the end of it all, I didn't see that anything exceptional had taken place down in that negroid-infested city in the swamps of Louisiana, other than it was business as usual, with Duke hawking his books, Paul Fromm hawking his, and the National Alliance hawking theirs.

PS: Last night was the first time I had actually heard Don Black speak. He's pretty good, actually, I'll give him that. It doesn't change my belief that Stormfront is basically a shill for the NA, but Don Black presents himself effectively. One odd thing I noted was Don Black's voice - it strongly reminded me of Richard Nixon's.

Well, I guess I don't really have anything else to say on this except: I understand the motivations of those who signed the NOP, even if those motivations were wrong-headed, misinformed, and/or unrealistic.

I understand the motivations of those who signed the NOP, even if those motivations were wrong-headed, misinformed, and/or unrealistic.
How can a bunch of guys who each have been at this full-time for 15 to 30 years and earned their living off the movement be "wrong-headed, misinformed, and/or unrealistic?" It seems to me that, if motivations matter, their motivations are self-serving.
***
The real question is "Do the New Orleans Protocols reflect the view of true revolutionaries?"
***
Would Jefferson and Patrick Henry have signed it? Would R E Lee have signed it? Would Braveheart have signed it? Can you think of anyone in history that you respect that would have signed it?
***
The New Orleans Protocols is a good thing because is exposes those who signed it.