One of the New Orleans Protocols is labeled "zero tolerance for violence." I quote below the comments against this particular Protocol by Edgar Steele, and for it by David Duke and Paul Fromm. By way of context, Steele is an attorney, Duke an ex-politician, and Fromm something of an anti-immigration activist. What strikes me as odd is that Steele seems to be taking a firm position of principle in opposition, whereas I read Duke and Fromm as supporting this Protocol for purely pragmatic reasons. That is, they are not saying they "need to pledge" non-violence; they're saying that doing so will help avoid dangerous entaglements with ZOG provocateurs and will attract support from WN's who "fear violence."

Hence the disconnect. If the zero-tolerance Protocol is being advanced as a tactical measure by someone with actual political experience (whatever one thinks of his integrity), I would expect the opposition to it to also be on tactical or pragmatic grounds, not just principles. For example, will it actually succeed in attracting support from the target audience? On the other hand, if it fails, what as a practical matter is lost if one is not planning on violence in any event? Or will this Protocol alienate another group of WN's, who are either as principled as Mr. Steele, or who feel diffently about violence?

Any thoughts?

Furthermore, I would not have signed it. I have no need to pledge not to do things that I have never done and have no present intention of doing. I decry violence, abhor the internecine fighting that occurs in the Movement and always endeavor to take the high road in my dealings with others. By analogy, imagine someone asking that you make a written promise not to beat your wife. The very inquiry is an accusation. By implication, the existence of such a group pledge suggests that those who don't sign are inveterate spousal abusers.

Nor have I ever demeaned myself to make self-exculpating pledges as an attorney in the past (as in agreeing to a reciprocal restraining order when it's the miscreant about-to-be-ex-husband who's been beating his wife, my client, not the other way around). Nor would signing onto anything of this ilk enhance my ability to help people in court - on the contrary.

http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/cooties.htm

On the "militant wing"

One of the big reasons for the protocol is to get all the "wings" on the same page!

For instance:

Say one of our people was vying for a U.S. Senate seat or any meaningful office and he had a great chance to win.

Imagine if the infiltrators of our Movement got some misguided WNs to blow up some minorities. Do you know that such an act would not only be horrendous, it would destroy the political chances of that candidate? In one fell swoop, his campaign would be absolutely destroyed.

Again I recall a story Dr. Edward Fields told me many times. In the early 60s tens of thousands of our people were in the streets protesting forced integration. The mood was powerful; our people were getting elected to high offices, etc.

Then one morning a bomb blew up three black Sunday schoolers, and you know what, in the days after the crowds for our cause went from ten thousand to about 10! After all, in our society what could be looked upon more adversely than a Cause that would blow up children in a church!

Later congressional inquiry information shows the clear involvement of infiltrators behind the perpetration of this heinous act.

There is only one way to avoid these kinds of disasters, zero, ZERO TOLERANCE of violence or violent rhetoric.

If someone talks that way, 9 times out of 10 its a fed or some other infiltrator. And if it is not a infiltrator it is a damned fool!

Matt Hale is going to prison for decades because he simply listened to an infiltrator suggest violence against a federal judge!

No tolerance for violence. Zero!

Every activist must get that burned into their head, tattooed on their arm if necessary.

I don't know how to state the case stronger!

Rep. David Duke

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1187956#post1187956

I couldn't agree more with Rep. Duke: Absolutely, zero tolerance for violence.

That's been Ernst Zundel's message for three decades. We're into a super paranoid era post 9/11. The State, in both our countries, means to criminalize dissent. Hanging the "terrorist" or violent label around our neck is the chosen tactic. The Canadian government already stole the computer of the Montreal head of the WCOTC under the "anti-terrorism" legislation. His crime was carrying music by groups like RaHoWa.

We must not play THEIR game; that is, we must refuse to be Hollywood Nazis strutting about and threatening mayhem or weekend warriors talking about guns and "the day."

Such vainglorious nonsense alienates us from the many racially conscious men and women who do support us and would support us further but rightly fear violence.

So, let's just make it clear: Zero tolerance for Violence.

Paul Fromm

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1187981#post1187981

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..

Paul Fromm

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=135634&page=1&pp=10

Hmm, how would Duke's protocol stop individual whites from committing acts of violence? That's a bit like suggesting that banning guns will stop shootings; only those who willingly adhere to the ban are covered. This thing is stupid on so many grounds.. foremost of which is that it makes us look guilty and on the defensive; having to reform our character in order to be acceptable to violent, genocidal, rampaging ZOG. It's such a girly, unserious, Strommy thing to do. Strom has no stomach for politics, either in terms of dealing with other men, or in dealing with the enemy, and this Duke protocol is in all likelihood his brainchild. That dweeb is pulling the strings everywhere, with disastrous results.

A related question that's been on my mind: What does Erich Gliebe do? He is chairman of the National Alliance. What does he do? Does anyone know? Please, only serious replies.

Hmm, how would Duke's protocol stop individual whites from committing acts of violence? That's a bit like suggesting that banning guns will stop shootings; only those who willingly adhere to the ban are covered. This thing is stupid on so many grounds.. foremost of which is that it makes us look guilty and on the defensive; having to reform our character in order to be acceptable to violent, genocidal, rampaging ZOG. It's such a girly, unserious, Strommy thing to do. Strom has no stomach for politics, either in terms of dealing with other men, or in dealing with the enemy, and this Duke protocol is in all likelihood his brainchild. That dweeb is pulling the strings everywhere, with disastrous results.

A related question that's been on my mind: What does Erich Gliebe do? He is chairman of the National Alliance. What does he do? Does anyone know? Please, only serious replies.

To me, it seems that since Dr. Pierce died, KAS has been let out of his cage and has been given free roam.

I think Erich was supposed to talk at the Duke homecoming but couldn't due to a family emergency. Who knows?

Erich has a full plate. He is in charge of the Alliance, NVB, Cymophane, and Resistance.

Erich has a full plate. He is in charge of the Alliance, NVB, Cymophane, and Resistance.

Yes, but what does he do. Walker and staff handle book orders, Strom does all the media work, and that's about it. What does Gliebe do now that he is no longer a unit head?

Zundel is in jail, maybe permanently.
Hale is in jail for decades perhaps.
Both constantly preached non-violence.
From this we are to learn that we must adopt non-violence?
Sorry, I can't follow that line of thinking.

stay legal yes. avoid entrapment and provocation.

but:

the day it has a reasonable possibility of success, the day when it would be effective, is not today, but when it comes, deeds will speak louder than words, and our natural right to collective self defense will be requited. If anything, less we say about it before then the better.

stay legal yes. avoid entrapment and provocation.

but:

the day it has a reasonable possibility of success, the day when it would be effective, is not today, but when it comes, deeds will speak louder than words, and our natural right to collective self defense will be requited. If anything, less we say about it before then the better.

After the failure of the putsch, Hitler turned to "legal revolution" as the means to power and chose two parallel paths to take the Nazis to that goal. First, the NSDAP would employ propaganda to create a national mass party capable of coming to power through electoral successes. Second, the party would develop a bureaucratic structure and prepare itself to assume roles in government. Beginning in the mid-1920s, Nazi groups sprang up in other parts of Germany. In 1927 the NSDAP organized the first Nuremberg party congress, a mass political rally. By 1928 party membership exceeded 100,000; the Nazis, however, polled only 2.6 percent of the vote in the Reichstag elections in May.

A mere splinter party in 1928, the NSDAP became better known the following year when it formed an alliance with the DNVP to launch a plebiscite against the Young Plan on the issue of reparations. The DNVP's leader, Alfred Hugenberg, owner of a large newspaper chain, considered Hitler's spellbinding oratory a useful means of attracting votes. The DNVP-NSDAP union brought the NSDAP within the framework of a socially influential coalition of the antirepublican right. As a result, Hitler's party acquired respectability and access to wealthy contributors.

In times of desperation, voters are ready for extreme solutions, and the NSDAP exploited the situation. Skilled Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels launched an intensive media campaign that ceaselessly expounded a few simple notions until even the dullest voter knew Hitler's basic program. The party's program was broad and general enough to appeal to many unemployed people, farmers, white-collar workers, members of the middle class who had been hurt by the Depression or had lost status since the end of World War I, and young people eager to dedicate themselves to nationalist ideals. If voters were not drawn to some aspects of the party platform, they might agree with others. Like other right-wing groups, the party blamed the Treaty of Versailles and reparations for the developing crisis. Nazi propaganda attacked the Weimar political system, the "November criminals," Marxists, internationalists, and Jews. Besides promising a solution to the economic crisis, the NSDAP offered the German people a sense of national pride and the promise of restored order.

Three elections--in September 1930, in July 1932, and in November 1932--were held between the onset of the Depression and Hitler's appointment as chancellor in January 1933. The vote shares of the SPD and the Center Party fluctuated somewhat yet remained much as they had been in 1928, when the SPD held a large plurality of 153 seats in the Reichstag and the Center Party held sixty-one, third after the DNVP's seventy-three seats. The shares of the parties of the extreme left and extreme right, the KPD and the NSDAP, respectively, increased dramatically in this period, KPD holdings almost doubling from fifty-four in 1928 to 100 in November 1932. The NSDAP's success was even greater. Beginning with twelve seats in 1928, the Nazis increased their delegation seats nearly tenfold, to 107 seats in 1930. They doubled their holdings to 230 in the summer of 1932. This made the NSDAP the largest party in the Reichstag, far surpassing the SPD with its 133 seats. The gains of the NSDAP came at the expense of the other right-wing parties.

Chancellor Bruening was unable to secure parliamentary majorities for his austerity policy, so he ruled by decree, a right given him by President Hindenburg. Head of the German army during World War I, Hindenburg had been elected president in 1925. Ruling without parliament was a major step in moving away from parliamentary democracy and had the approval of many on the right. Many historians see this development as part of a strategic plan formulated at the time by elements of the conservative establishment to abolish the republic and replace it with an authoritarian regime.

By late May 1932, Hindenburg had found Bruening insufficiently pliable and named a more conservative politician, Franz von Papen, as his successor. After the mid-1932 elections that made the NSDAP Germany's largest party, Papen sought to harness Hitler for the purposes of traditional conservatives by offering him the post of vice chancellor in a new cabinet. Hitler refused this offer, demanding the chancellorship instead.

General Kurt von Schleicher, a master intriguer and a leader of the conservative campaign to abolish the republic, convinced Hindenburg to dismiss Papen. Schleicher formed a new government in December but lost Hindenburg's support within a month. On January 30, 1933, Papen again put together a cabinet, this time with Hitler as chancellor. Papen and other conservatives thought they could tame Hitler by tying him down with the responsibilities of government and transferring to themselves his tremendous popularity with a large portion of the electorate. But they proved no match for his ruthlessness and his genius at knowing how--and when--to seize power. Within two months, Hitler had dictatorial control over Germany.

I agree with the basic premise of the Protocol, being that of gaining power through political means and taking a unified stance against our enemies. With that said, I'm sorry to see it has created division among folks over here.

That isn't the premise of the protocol; it's to exclude all those who don't take a certain tone. It would have excluded Pierce if the worms who put it together had the courage to try it when he was alive. But then we'd all have just laughed at them. Which is what we should do now. NOP: "All those who don't take our tone are bad guys, and no one can criticize us." Thankfully this is only their delusion and no one is actually required to go along with it. And few do. Things have gone on pretty much how they always have: VNN is published daily with the best material around, NV is published daily with very good material of a different tone, Don Black publishes nothing, David Duke publishes nothing, Ed Steele writes his columns, and an insecure Strom crouches paranoidly in the corner, worried, wanting to but unable to control everyone else. And the world keeps on turning.. and the whole thing will keep on growing, though more slowly now due to all the bitterness and division stirred up by those who out of their own insecurity and for personal reasons (their wives, for example) wanted to discredit and harm the very popular, influential and fast-growing VNN.

All of this taking over by gaining political power stuff is dependant on a charismatic leader. And that alone is not enough. He needs promotion. In Draco's post he mentions Hitler's gift for oratory was noticed and promoted by a newspaper publisher. A similar thing could happen if a superstar appears on the internet, but I'm unaware of one yet.

All of this taking over by gaining political power stuff is dependant on a charismatic leader. And that alone is not enough. He needs promotion. In Draco's post he mentions Hitler's gift for oratory was noticed and promoted by a newspaper publisher. A similar thing could happen if a superstar appears on the internet, but I'm unaware of one yet.


I think the biggest strength, over the charismatic leader bit, that we can learn from the NSDAP was that every National Socialist is a propagandist... this is really what I mean by gaining through political power. White Revolution's mission statement says it in similar terms:

When some people think of revolution, they think of guns and bombs and hand grenades. But for us, at this stage of the revolution, our weapons of choice are the pen, the leaflet, the keyboard, the videocamera, and every other weapon of mass construction which allows us to reach out to our people and awaken them to the dangers which threaten our very existence. The time may well come when we will communicate to our enemies in a manner which they will find unambiguous, but for now we must lay the foundation and create the support networks which will be necessary for any future endeavors.

Create the feet of clay we'll be stuck with later. In the U.S., they have allowed the jewdiciary to become the law making branch, without a peep. The sheeple need a strong model to follow. I'd rather grow my roots in a different future world than adapt to this one.

All of this taking over by gaining political power stuff is dependant on a charismatic leader. And that alone is not enough. He needs promotion. In Draco's post he mentions Hitler's gift for oratory was noticed and promoted by a newspaper publisher. A similar thing could happen if a superstar appears on the internet, but I'm unaware of one yet.

I'm not sure if Draco mentioned this, but in the case of Hitler, The Pusch and subsequent trial in which Hitler defended himself brought him noteriaty, popularity and an audience for his book amongst the Germans.

There were not 100 million muds in Germany in the 1920s. There were not Jews in control of Germany sending white boys to die for jews.

Big difference. We aren't going to be able to do anything peacefully with the Jews in charge of the media.

I can understand the concerns about using violence but there will be no redemption without bloodshed. Oceans of blood. We aren't going to extracate ourselves from this mess without getting messy ourselves.

Just my opinion.

There were not 100 million muds in Germany in the 1920s. There were not Jews in control of Germany sending white boys to die for jews.

Big difference. We aren't going to be able to do anything peacefully with the Jews in charge of the media.

I can understand the concerns about using violence but there will be no redemption without bloodshed. Oceans of blood. We aren't going to extracate ourselves from this mess without getting messy ourselves.

Just my opinion.

And who is going to stand up to a well trained professional army? Certainly not the local militia. Well at least not if they want to live. People here are underestimating the armed forces and police.


...

Can't say I'm surprised by the general reaction here. The point about Zundel is well-taken, and in any event I don't see him as a big part of Racial politics. What I still haven't heard, though, is a persuasive reason why it is harmful to pay homage to non-violence if you don't intend violence, or even (or especially!) if you do.

Looking at Fromm's point, I think the kind of people he's trying to reach are what I would call functional Racists (I know lots). That is, they're too Christian or PC or whatever to think of themselves as Racist; they just happen invariably to find their lives worsened by the presence of non-Whites. For example, they avoid negroes because they "rightly fear (negro) violence." So talking RAHOWA with them is foolish.

The logical extension of where the Fromms want to go, which seems to me is mainstream politics, means that Duke, being an ex-con and former Klansman, is not good company, nor is NA with the McVeigh association, amongst other baggage. Just thinking out loud, if "respectable" but discontented people don't like to think of themselves as Racist, and as Duke himself admits, naming the jew is very tricky, then the only feasible political strategy I can see is vaguely CCC/Buchananite--some form of non-Racial American nativism.

For example:
1. No illegal immigration (enforced against all employers); moratorium on legal immigration from anywhere.
2. No racial preferences to any group.
3. No foreign aid to any country; no military deployments anywhere unless directly attacked.

This is inherently populist, and will get no support from the NAM or Churches. Buchanan of course went nowhere with this sort of thing but perhaps he was too ambitious, shooting for the White House on the first (and second) run.
Could someone get elected to the Senate from a mostly White state on this type of platform? And if they did, would it be better than nothing? Or worse than nothing?

Can't say I'm surprised by the general reaction here. The point about Zundel is well-taken, and in any event I don't see him as a big part of Racial politics. What I still haven't heard, though, is a persuasive reason why it is harmful to pay homage to non-violence if you don't intend violence, or even (or especially!) if you do.

Looking at Fromm's point, I think the kind of people he's trying to reach are what I would call functional Racists (I know lots). That is, they're too Christian or PC or whatever to think of themselves as Racist; they just happen invariably to find their lives worsened by the presence of non-Whites. For example, they avoid negroes because they "rightly fear (negro) violence." So talking RAHOWA with them is foolish.

The logical extension of where the Fromms want to go, which seems to me is mainstream politics, means that Duke, being an ex-con and former Klansman, is not good company, nor is NA with the McVeigh association, amongst other baggage. Just thinking out loud, if "respectable" but discontented people don't like to think of themselves as Racist, and as Duke himself admits, naming the jew is very tricky, then the only feasible political strategy I can see is vaguely CCC/Buchananite--some form of non-Racial American nativism.

For example:
1. No illegal immigration (enforced against all employers); moratorium on legal immigration from anywhere.
2. No racial preferences to any group.
3. No foreign aid to any country; no military deployments anywhere unless directly attacked.

This is inherently populist, and will get no support from the NAM or Churches. Buchanan of course went nowhere with this sort of thing but perhaps he was too ambitious, shooting for the White House on the first (and second) run.
Could someone get elected to the Senate from a mostly White state on this type of platform? And if they did, would it be better than nothing? Or worse than nothing?

nice thread, good input and then excellent expansion on the original post. "functional racists" number in the millions of Whites. Converting them into action requires a mass-media push to show them that a "populist" political movement is voting their pocketbook.

So we are back to: Jews controlling the media.

Perot was quasi populist and he bought the media, temporarily, to make his message; but then he ran up against the big structural problem in American politics that makes the system so durable and also so different than European parliamentary democracy: the two party system. It's a trick of sleight of hand whereby one can vote for Establishment Party One or Establishment party Two. Nothing else gets very far.

Basically, I believe political involvement should be opportunistically used by "racists" for ends other than winning which is nigh impossible at this juncture. But to do that, there has to be limits on how many "compromises" are actually made.

Canada is a different ball of wax entirely. Might as well be European given how their system works. Much more changeable than the US.

Don't confuse the above ground and below ground Movements. The above ground UNITES, ORGANIZES White people while EXPOSING THE JEWS, but cannot win without the below ground.


You make a good point here... I think from Duke and Fromm's perspective, they cannot leave the back door open for militancy. Consider what Duke said above. He mentions clearly about a politician running for office whose campaign is thwarted by a lone wolf. Duke's working hard to rebuild his political base, and I'm sure he prays that no one will come along and mess that up.

Just as you said, 'what the underground does is their business'; why wouldn't the same be true for the above ground? The grunt doesn't tell the statesman how to do his job and vice versa.

There was a Swedish company that made caskets, but then branched out. They put up billboards with their name and the message "Not just about caskets anymore!"

What do you connect that company with after reading that sign?

Caskets.

If nationalists get together and write a document, with much ado, about renouncing violence and crime, what impression are you left with? Nationalists are violent and criminal.

If you want to make an anti-violence statement you do it when asked about a specific case of violence, and you don't have a big meeting to write a document about it. Jesus Oden, this is Marketing 101!

And then there's the part where they only agree not to attack each other. So they want to come off as taking the high road, but in fact they are just being sneaky.

One of the New Orleans Protocols is labeled "zero tolerance for violence." I quote below the comments against this particular Protocol by Edgar Steele, and for it by David Duke and Paul Fromm. By way of context, Steele is an attorney, Duke an ex-politician, and Fromm something of an anti-immigration activist. What strikes me as odd is that Steele seems to be taking a firm position of principle in opposition, whereas I read Duke and Fromm as supporting this Protocol for purely pragmatic reasons. That is, they are not saying they "need to pledge" non-violence; they're saying that doing so will help avoid dangerous entaglements with ZOG provocateurs and will attract support from WN's who "fear violence."

Hence the disconnect. If the zero-tolerance Protocol is being advanced as a tactical measure by someone with actual political experience (whatever one thinks of his integrity), I would expect the opposition to it to also be on tactical or pragmatic grounds, not just principles. For example, will it actually succeed in attracting support from the target audience? On the other hand, if it fails, what as a practical matter is lost if one is not planning on violence in any event? Or will this Protocol alienate another group of WN's, who are either as principled as Mr. Steele, or who feel diffently about violence?

Any thoughts?

This is just my personal feelings on the matter. I'll respond why this part of the protocol was stupid in another post (I already did this in the last thread). In principle I feel differently about violence. I'm not a fan of Thoreau or the people like Gandhi, hippies and King that followed in his footsteps. I think that a blanket renunciation of all violence is an effeminate position, one of many that has created our current dilemma.

Fighting, dueling, and the like have always been traditions in the West. What has happened is that in the "war of ideas" (or ideas that the controlled media has promoted), we have been on the losing side time and again. The "horrified" response to the idea of violence is merely the belief in a new absolute. I would say that for the 'general public' (not everyone) three important absolutes have been replaced: racism, gender-roles and violence. You run into many racists that think that the ONLY thing that is wrong is the 'race' aspect but everything else about the modern world is OK (John Joytree comes to mind).

So we basically have two approaches we can take with the masses: 1) Try to influence people with our ideology and make the center move our direction or 2) present ourselves as basically the same as the status quo but with a few aspects of our watered down ideology thrown in.

Number two is fine if you want to create a political party and get general support (or just run our people in the mainstream parties). You promote a few 'hot-button' issues that the controlled media has allowed Whitey to care about. You basically go along with everyone else, depending upon what area you live in otherwise. Of course, I doubt that many people will be influenced in the least by you but we could possibly obtain some political power.

Otherwise, we can try number one. If no one is going to start that political party and run hundreds of candidates throughout the country, then you might as well work like hell on number one. Right now, this is all that we have.

Can't say I'm surprised by the general reaction here. The point about Zundel is well-taken, and in any event I don't see him as a big part of Racial politics. What I still haven't heard, though, is a persuasive reason why it is harmful to pay homage to non-violence if you don't intend violence, or even (or especially!) if you do.

Looking at Fromm's point, I think the kind of people he's trying to reach are what I would call functional Racists (I know lots). That is, they're too Christian or PC or whatever to think of themselves as Racist; they just happen invariably to find their lives worsened by the presence of non-Whites. For example, they avoid negroes because they "rightly fear (negro) violence." So talking RAHOWA with them is foolish.

The logical extension of where the Fromms want to go, which seems to me is mainstream politics, means that Duke, being an ex-con and former Klansman, is not good company, nor is NA with the McVeigh association, amongst other baggage. Just thinking out loud, if "respectable" but discontented people don't like to think of themselves as Racist, and as Duke himself admits, naming the jew is very tricky, then the only feasible political strategy I can see is vaguely CCC/Buchananite--some form of non-Racial American nativism.

For example:
1. No illegal immigration (enforced against all employers); moratorium on legal immigration from anywhere.
2. No racial preferences to any group.
3. No foreign aid to any country; no military deployments anywhere unless directly attacked.

This is inherently populist, and will get no support from the NAM or Churches. Buchanan of course went nowhere with this sort of thing but perhaps he was too ambitious, shooting for the White House on the first (and second) run.
Could someone get elected to the Senate from a mostly White state on this type of platform? And if they did, would it be better than nothing? Or worse than nothing?

This is from http://forums.originaldissent.com/s...ead.php?t=14034 (Hugh Lincoln):

"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."

You've basically answered why the Protocols were stupid to begin with. The very people that are signing it have a huge amount of baggage. Duke and Black are both ex-cons. Duke was convicted of ripping off his supporters and Black was convicted of conspiring to take over Dominica. Pringle has made numerous remarks that violate the NOP. The NA would have to remove a huge portion of Pierce's work, Resistance, and many books from their catalog to even come close to getting in line with the NOP. They won't and they have an enormous amount of baggage for a group that seems to have political aspirations.