Video of American Third Position Party Nominee Merlin Miller

Here is a short video (It’s too long to call a commercial.) of Merlin Miller, the Presidential nominee of the American Third Position Party. It was sent to me in an e-mail.

68 thoughts on “Video of American Third Position Party Nominee Merlin Miller

  1. RedPhillips Post author

    American Third Position Party may be an even worse name than Americans Elect. It means nothing to anyone except those people who are already in the know.

  2. RedPhillips Post author

    Brock, Miller is a Ron Paul supporter. I think Miller is probably more of a free market supporter than is the A3P in general. I think the A3P officially supports a certain amount of what might be called economic nationalism.

  3. Indy

    I think the A3P officially supports a certain amount of what might be called economic nationalism.

    Better known as national socialism.

  4. Jed Siple

    @1 I think that’s they’re reasoning. Calling themselves anything even remotely white nationalist in nature would immediately ruin any chance of ballot access. But with an ambiguous-sounding name that also doesn’t necessarily lie about who they are, they just might be able to con a few ill-informed voters into signing their petitions and/or voting for them. It’s pretty ingenious.

  5. bruuno

    @6- I must have missed the part of Perot’s platform that said he wanted “to restore and preserve the legitimacy of White identity, White heritage, and expressions of White interests”

  6. Paulie

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_position

    Third Position is a revolutionary nationalist political ideology that emphasizes its opposition to both communism and capitalism. Advocates of Third Position politics typically present themselves as “beyond left and right”, instead claiming to syncretize radical ideas from both ends of the political spectrum.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

    Third Positionists tend to advocate for the ownership of the means of producing goods and services to be distributed as widely as possible among the “productive members of society”, seek alliances with separatists of ethnicity and race other than their own to achieve “separate but equal” ethnic and racial segregation, support national liberation movements in the least developed countries, and have recently embraced environmentalism and reconstructionist paganism.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

    Political scientists such as Roger Griffin, dismiss Third Positionist claims of being “beyond left and right” as specious. They argue that Third Positionism is in fact an ideological mutation of the neo-fascist right, which rejects both Marxism and liberalism for an ultranationalism that seeks to achieve a national rebirth by establishing a confederation of ethnically and racially homogeneous communities where ownership of productive property is distributed among all members. The main precursors of Third Position politics are National Bolshevism, a synthesis of nationalism and Bolshevik communism, and Strasserism, a radical, mass-action and worker-based form of Nazism.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

  7. ctomp

    Scary stuff. Though he starts out like a Ron Paul clone, he soons shows his true colors.

  8. Paulie

    More from that same wikipedia article:

    United States

    In the United States, the Political Research Associates argue that Third Position politics has been promoted by some white nationalist groups, such as the National Alliance, Rockford Institute, American Front, and White Aryan Resistance, as well as some black nationalist groups, such as the Nation of Islam, since the late 20th century.[1]

    Third Position adherents in the U.S. actively seek to recruit from the left by attempting to convince progressive activists to join forces to oppose certain government policies where there is a shared critique, primarily around such issues as the use of U.S. troops in foreign military interventions, support for Israel, the problems of CIA misconduct and covert action, domestic government repression, privacy rights, and civil liberties.[1]

    In 2010, the American Third Position Party was founded, in part, to channel the right-wing populist resentment engendered by the financial crisis of 2007–2010 and the policies of the Obama administration.[10]

  9. bruuno

    “policies of the Obama administration”- Is that the policy of being an African American?

  10. Paulie

    And the section of the wikipedia article dealing with the UK:

    United Kingdom

    Fiore’s exile in the United Kingdom during the 1980s saw the export of Third Position to the UK, where it was taken up by a group of neo-fascists including Patrick Harrington and Derek Holland, who soon became known as the Official National Front. They called for the creation of Political Soldiers, who would be devoted to nationalism and racial separatism, also helping to clarify the economic stance of the Third Position by drawing from the early 20th century distributists, Social Creditors, guild socialists and other “radical patriots”. Within the UK, the ideology was less overtly Catholic than in Italy, although Catholic social teaching remained an important aspect.

    With the split of the National Front, the Third Position stance in Britain was carried on by the group Third Way, and more notably the International Third Position (ITP). Renamed England First, ITP continues to organise on a small scale and has produced a Third Position Handbook that details the aims of the movement.

    For anyone interested in learning more than the wikipedia article above has, it has links to the following additional wikipedia articles – see wiki page above for live links:

    Ecofascism
    Franco Freda
    International Third Position
    National-Anarchism
    Nouvelle Droite
    Producerism
    Syncretic politics
    Terza Posizione

  11. JamesT

    This guy is pretty frightening. Do you think he is a fed? most of the white power people turn out to be.

  12. paulie

    Sorry in advance for the overkill. Here’s another good wikipedia article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_third_position

    For another party by the name “England First”, see England First Party.

    International Third Position (ITP) was a neo-fascist organization formed by the breakaway faction of the neofascist British National Front and Italian neofascists[1] led by Roberto Fiore.[2]

    ITP ideology is a mix of leftist and rightist ideas—e.g., environmentalism, wealth redistribution—with a racist agenda identifying the Jews and the immigrants as the prime enemies.[1]

    Initially the ITP distanced itself from traditional Fascism and Nazism, promoting ‘racial separatism’ rather than crude racism. The International Third Position operated more as an elite cadre than a mass movement.

    Though a key formulator of the Third Positionist platform, Nick Griffin left in 1990.[2] After about 4 years he joined the British National Party (BNP), where he later succeeded the BNP founder John Tyndall.

    Troy Southgate, as well as the majority of ITP supporters, split from the organisation in September 1992 after accusing Roberto Fiore and Derek Holland of ideological hypocrisy and swindling members out of their life savings to prop up the group’s failed rural experiment in northern France. This included the departure of several local ITP publications, including The Kent Crusader,[citation needed] Surrey Action, and Eastern Legion. Southgate then founded the English Nationalist Movement (ENM) and during this time edited magazines like The Crusader and The English Alternative. The ENM had strong units in the Burnley, Bradford and south-east Kent areas[citation needed].

    The ITP changed its name to England First in 2001 and has since become a part of the European National Front with the Spanish Falange, Italian Forza Nuova, Romanian Noua Dreapt?, Polish National Rebirth of Poland and others.

    The most recent ITP/ENF gathering in central London in April 2005 drew 150 supporters. Overall membership is estimated by Searchlight magazine to be somewhat lower than this, although the ITP maintains a relatively strong publishing presence as well as its network of international contacts. The modern party is much less critical of Islam than the rest of the British far-right, and claims that the campaign against Islam is mostly driven by Jewish interests. The party remains strongly anti-Semitic.[2]
    Publications supporting the ITP in the UK are Final Conflict, The Voice of St George and Candour (which was previously published by A. K. Chesterton and is the longest running far right publication in Britain).

    See also

    Third Position
    Third Way

  13. RedPhillips

    “some white nationalist groups … Rockford Institute”

    Whoever wrote that is either an idiot or a smear artist or both. The Rockford Institute (the publisher of Chronicles Magazine) is not white nationalist nor is it third position. RI is paleoconservative. They are probably the primary originators of what we now call paleoconservatism. Third position is nationalist. Paleoconservatives are radical decentralists. Third position folks don’t like a lot of Constitutional restrictions on the Fed Gov because they interfere with the ability to carry out nationalist economic programs and what not, and often disparage constitutionalists. Paleos are strict Constitutionalists (in theory) and generally sympathetic to the Articles of Confederation. (I say in theory because a lot of paleos believe the Constitution to be a de facto dead letter, a therefore Constitutionalism a waste of time and energy.)

  14. JamesT

    Didn’t Paul Gottfried start paleoconservatism? At least he seems to think so. Also a lot of paleocon stuff gets conflated with white nationalism.

    I find it really disturbing this dude says things that are mostly true but then throws in white nationalism. It sounded like a CP add until the white power stuff got plugged.

  15. Anna

    Thanks for all the info, guys. I hadn’t even heard of Merlin Miller until reading this. But he seems like he has some good pro-Western ideas. Now I know for whom I’ll vote. Merlin Miller, 2012!

  16. RedPhillips

    One reason third position is such a bad name is because it means something only to a small group of people who already know what it means. (I know that’s redundant but you get the point.) It is really a European concept that is lost on an American audience. That issues cluster doesn’t really exist in large numbers in the US. While there is A LOT of space to tap into populist “fair trade” sentiment in the US because that majority opinion is represented by neither party, there are few people on the right in America that see the government as a potentially wise and beneficent manager of economic activity. Distrust of government and what is by European standards wild eyed commitment to laissez faire economics is virtually ubiquitous on the right. A desire for the government to manage the economy is virtually confined to the left in America. (Robert Reich for example.)

    Regarding Ross Perot, he tapped into this sentiment (as did/does Donald Trump) in a way with the idea of “running America like a business,” and the idealization of the pre-stagnation Japanese economy.

  17. RedPhillips

    “Didn’t Paul Gottfried start paleoconservatism?”

    James, there is a largely friendly debate about who first coined the term paleoconservative, Gottfried or Thomas Fleming, but there is no doubt that the Rockford Institute was the intellectual center of paleoconservatism and the Buchanan campaign its popular expression. (The term was initially coined as a joke, in contradistinction to neoconservatism, but it stuck. I like the term. Many don’t.)

  18. paulie

    Whoever wrote that is either an idiot or a smear artist or both.

    Haven’t checked the talk page, but any statement on wikipedia can be challenged on wikipedia and has to be defended or removed.

    Third position is nationalist. Paleoconservatives are radical decentralists. Third position folks don’t like a lot of Constitutional restrictions on the Fed Gov because they interfere with the ability to carry out nationalist economic programs and what not, and often disparage constitutionalists.

    I think TP is described as nationalist mostly in the ethnic sense, not necessarily in the government structure sense although the two often go hand in hand. Some ethnic nationalists are decentralist; there’s even something called “national anarchism.”

    A lot of paleos seem to be ethnic nationalists or even ethnic supremacists, although most are not crudely racist.

  19. paulie

    A desire for the government to manage the economy is virtually confined to the left in America. (Robert Reich for example.)

    Center – bailouts

    Left, center and right – protectionism

    Center, right – “public-private partnerships,” corporate welfare

    All 3 – eminent domain for corporate interests

    Center, right also – military-industrial complex

  20. Trent Hill

    Red is quite right about the Rockford Institute. Not third position and not white nationalist.

  21. George Phillies

    “there are few people on the right in America that see the government as a potentially wise and beneficent manager of economic activity. ” Well, if you don’t count Republicans, and for example, the Bush iirc steel tariff.

  22. paulie

    Much of the anti-migrant stuff is protectionist/economic know-nothing: “keep jobs for us only” – which is not decentralist or laissez faire.

  23. Brian Holtz

    A desire for the government to manage the economy is virtually confined to the left in America

    No, both the Left and the Right favor a nanny state. A list of nanny-state programs that both favor is featured in these two videos:

  24. RedPhillips

    Good grief GP and paulie, everyone believes in government planning by libertarian standards, but I think you know what I mean. The idea of an “industrial policy” so to speak is generally on the left in America.

    Opposition to immigration and free trade could potentially flow together with wanting the Fed Gov to guide or manage production, but it generally doesn’t in America. In fact, opposition to immigration would likely track very closely with opposition to excessive federal regulation because those positions belong to an issues grouping that cluster together in America. That is my broad point. Third position is a largely European construct. No need to nit pick that.

  25. Brian Holtz

    Here are some examples of government interference in markets, all of which are supported by the Right:

    restrictions on personal risk-taking
    restrictions on drug development
    restrictions on land use
    restrictions on pharmaceutical imports
    restrictions on buying risky products
    restrictions on commodity imports
    restrictions on banking
    restrictions on nuclear power liability
    restrictions on insurance contract terms

    mandates on hiring and firing
    mandates on wages and hours
    mandates on energy efficiency
    mandates for use of safety technology
    mandates on how (not whether) to cut pollution
    mandates for employer enforcement of immigration laws
    mandates on collective bargaining

    bans on gambling
    bans on media technology
    bans on reproductive services
    bans on substance use
    bans on private currencies
    bans on “obscenity” in media

    subsidized mortgage lending
    subsidized housing
    subsidized tuition lending
    subsidized exports
    subsidized small business lending
    subsidized tobacco
    subsidized farming
    subsidized grazing
    subsidized water usage
    subsidized oil exploration
    subsidized oil extraction
    subsidized mineral extraction
    subsidized energy technologies
    subsidized spectrum use
    subsidized “urban development”

    socialized disaster insurance
    socialized deposit insurance
    socialized unemployment “insurance”
    socialized disability insurance
    socialized health insurance
    socialized prescription drug insurance
    socialized retirement savings
    socialized K-12 education

  26. Dylan Hales

    Third position stuff is tough because it is vague and the term has a history that is hard to peg down. I’ve seen the Swedish housewives movement described as Third position, as well as distributism, Buchananism and mutualism. Due largely to this confusion, I gave a tepid endorsement to the concept on a podcast I now regret having done (note: don’t lazily agree to do radio shows you aren’t familiar with at all), having forgotten that the party that takes that name in the States is a haven for Kevin McDonald style white nationalism – which I find to be a waste of time, silly and morally bankrupt.

  27. paulie

    Brian and Red

    All depends on what you mean by left and right, and there are anti-migration people on the so called left, mostly using labor protectionist and environmental arguments.

  28. RedPhillips

    Ugh!

    BH, remove yourself from your ideological bubble for a minute and join us in the real world.

    First of all, the real “right” does not support all those things. They don’t support subsidized oil exploration for example. Or subsidized farming. The official right has long been against agricultural subsidies for example. The corporatist party (the GOP) that pretends to be right may. Shills for special interests who pretend to be right may. (Newt supporting ethanol subsidies for example.) However, the majority of people aren’t rigidly ideological. They may vaguely support some of those things and vaguely oppose others. There is likely broad support for subsidized disaster insurance. deposit insurance, etc. Less broad support of things that are viewed as more special interests. They probably don’t support cutbacks they would view as radical and favor something like the status quo give or take. But look through your list. You are much more likely to find opposition to those things, except the vice issues, on the right, especially the serious right. Here’s a test. Who’s more likely to oppose things on that list? The Constitution Party or the Green Party?

    The point I am making is a broad one. Broadly speaking the right in America favors (at least rhetorically) a free market approach and is skeptical of government intervention in economic affairs. What is the point of nit picking that to death? This is especially true in relation to Europe which is my point. There are very few American style libertarians in Europe. In fact, most of the people they call libertarians we would call neo-liberals (pro free trade globalists but certainly not anti-welfare state or anti-regulation). Heck, they call the Mayor of London libertarian.

    That is the point. Third position is largely a European construct. The excesses of capitalism that they oppose are in their mind typified by the United States. The number of rightist people in America who are willing to vote third party and who hold third position political opinions is vanishingly small. In fact, I highly suspect that you would find more third positionesque sentiments among people who consider themselves centrists. In fact, what A3P may be counting on is the radicalization of the center or activating what Sam Francis called Middle American Radicals.

    I really don’t think my point is controversial if people would quit ideologically nit picking it.

  29. Jed Siple

    @40 From what I’ve heard, their petitioning in WV is going pretty well.

  30. Brian Holtz

    Red@39 Yes, it’s definitely easier to find free-market fans on the Right, and the Right’s rhetoric is better on economic freedom.

    My point is just that for Americans to whom economic freedom is important, the mainstream Right (i.e. the GOP) is not a very useful political option.

  31. M

    In Europe, “third position” parties probably have a better ring than in the US. To the average European “third position” signifies a compromise between the excesses of American capitalism and Soviet Marxism. (Although most third position parties in Europe are right wing, not all of them are.) To Americans, this context is absent since part of what is rejected by third position parties is perceived as Americanism (e.g. excess consumerism, corporatism, etc.).

  32. Nick Kruse

    I realize this site was created to highlight the candidacies of third party and independent candidates, but can we please use a little discretion here? Only the Dems, Reps, Libertarians, Greens, and Constitution nominees will be on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical possibility of winning. Highlighting sideshows like the Third Position Party will only have the affect of making voters think all third party candidates are wackos.

  33. paulie

    Red

    The point I am making is a broad one. Broadly speaking the right in America favors (at least rhetorically) a free market approach and is skeptical of government intervention in economic affairs. What is the point of nit picking that to death? This is especially true in relation to Europe which is my point.

    That’s true, but only relative to Europe. I know that in Russia, when people say “right wing” they mean something a lot more like what American libertarians mean by authoritarian or bottom of the Nolan chart, ie the opposite of us. Third positionism fits in comfortably with that. Parts of the American right have veered in that direction, what Lew Rockwell deemed “Red State Fascism.” Indeed, the Dixiecrat and some other elements of the American Right were always like that; George Wallace was always a progressive on economic issues, for example – he just veered into right wing territory temporarily on social issues, “law and order,” racial and cryptoracial demagoguery, the war, and so on. Likewise, Reagan was a lifelong New Deal/labor union Democrat who veered to the right and the NSGOP over the cold war and the social upheavals of the 1960s, without ever abandoning his support for New Deal policies. While he used some libertarianish economic rhetoric, his policies as Governor and President never came close to matching them. “Reagan Democrats” were likewise largely economic progressives who were alienated by antiwar and socially liberal counterculture; so were the original neocons. None of those were or are third positionists exactly, of course. But I can see where some third positionists may see fertile ground, if they are being optimistic from their perspective, which is by and large far from mine.

    The number of rightist people in America who are willing to vote third party and who hold third position political opinions is vanishingly small.

    Depends on how far you stretch the definition, and other factors. George Wallace did pretty well for a non-D/Roid presidential candidate. Not fully third positionist at all, but certainly in that direction by American standards. Pat Buchanan showed some third positionist tendencies, albeit weak ones as well. His rhetoric on economic issues veered towards labor unionism and populism. He didn’t do very well in vote totals, but did get a lot of attention.

    In fact, what A3P may be counting on is the radicalization of the center or activating what Sam Francis called Middle American Radicals.

    That’s not exactly a new concept he came up with. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

    Fascists were not hostile to the petit-bourgeoisie or to small businesses, and they promised these groups, alongside the proletariat, protection from the upper-class bourgeoisie, big business, and Marxism. The promotion of these groups is the source of the term “extremism of the centre” to describe fascism.[258]

    Fascism blamed capitalist liberal democracies for creating class conflict and communists for exploiting it.[259] In Italy, the Fascist period presided over the creation of the largest number of state-owned enterprises in Western Europe, such as the nationalisation of petroleum companies into a single state enterprise called the Italian General Agency for Petroleum (Azienda Generale Italiani Petroli, AGIP).[260] Fascists made populist appeals to the middle class, especially the lower middle class, by promising to protect small businesses and property owners from communism, and by promising an economy based on competition and profit while pledging to oppose big business.[258]

  34. paulie

    their petitioning in WV is going pretty well.

    Which means what in more concrete terms? And what other states? I heard they were working in WY when I was there, but I don’t think it was anything likely to actually get them on the ballot.

  35. paulie

    Brian

    My point is just that for Americans to whom economic freedom is important, the mainstream Right (i.e. the GOP) is not a very useful political option.

    No one was talking about that kind of right here.

  36. RedPhillips Post author

    “Highlighting sideshows like the Third Position Party will only have the affect of making voters think all third party candidates are wackos.”

    Nick, isn’t that what the Republicans and the Democrats say about the CP, the LP and the GP?

    You could argue that Miller has a more substantial/credible resume than Jill Stein or the typical CP candidate, this year being an exception.

  37. paulie

    isn’t that what the Republicans and the Democrats say about the CP, the LP and the GP?

    Sure. At some point there’s probably a line you don’t want to cross. For some it may be between them and any alt parties, for some it may be somewhere between the LP/CP and the A3p, BTP, SWP et al, for some it may be somewhere between Milnes and Ogle and those involuntarily confined due to mental illness right now. Not everyone will agree where that line should be, even here.

  38. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    When I first heard “Third Position,” I assumed they were a moderate, centrist party — that by “third position” they meant between the “two extremes of left and right.”

    I think that’s what most Americans will assume, as most Americans are not savvy about European politics.

  39. paulie

    You could argue that Miller has a more substantial/credible resume than Jill Stein or the typical CP candidate, this year being an exception.

    He won’t be on the ballot in as many states, and his ideology is less respectable in the public square.

  40. johncjackson

    In The U.S., left=D and right=R, regardless of the accuracy of those assessments. Politically, voters are ignorant and likely always will be. People like us, who care at all and bother to debate the nuances of policies and labels, will always be a tiny minority.

  41. Nick Kruse

    Jed: I’d vote for Merlin Miller over Obama and Romney.

    Me: I would too, if those were my only three options. But there are so many more credible candidates like Johnson, Goode, and Stein that will be on the ballot in every single state that Merlin will be on, plus a lot more states that he won’t be on.

  42. Nick Kruse

    @49, there were about 23 candidates that ran in Arizona Republican Presidential primary. Do you believe all of them should have been covered by the media as if they were legitimate candidates? We should focus on covering the nominees of the top 5 or so parties in the general election. Any more than that would make voters to confused about third parties to consider voting for them.

  43. paulie

    In The U.S., left=D and right=R, regardless of the accuracy of those assessments. Politically, voters are ignorant and likely always will be. People like us, who care at all and bother to debate the nuances of policies and labels, will always be a tiny minority.

    When left and right are mentioned in the course of an IPR discussion one can’t presume that we mean mainstream Democrats and Republicans. After all we discuss people outside those establishments here, and many of those lean left or right in various ways.

  44. paulie

    I’d vote for Merlin Miller over Obama and Romney.

    That’s like voting for throat cancer over testicular cancer and brain cancer, or vice versa.

  45. paulie

    there were about 23 candidates that ran in Arizona Republican Presidential primary. Do you believe all of them should have been covered by the media as if they were legitimate candidates? We should focus on covering the nominees of the top 5 or so parties in the general election. Any more than that would make voters to confused about third parties to consider voting for them.

    IPR reports on alt parties and independents for better and for worse – the good, the bad, the ugly, the nearly mainstream and the vanishingly obscure. We do focus on the nearly mainstream more than the completely bizarre and disorganized, but not exclusively. It’s legitimate to debate that balance, but given the number of people signed up to write at IPR and their different interests, I would not expect an exclusive focus on the “top 5” anytime soon, unless the site owner suddenly changes policies we have had since the site started. It is possible that you will see an incremental move in that direction.

  46. wolfefan

    Back in the 1980’s and 90’s, “third way” was used to describe Blair’s approach in Great Britain and, to some extent, Clinton-style DLC politics in the US.

    FWIW, I’d vote for Romney, Obama, or almost any other remotely mainstream D or R candidate over Miller. A non-racist statist is far more to my preference than someone who is slightly less statist but wants to use the power of the state in a racist fashion.

  47. Deran

    In the 80s and 90s Greens tried to use the phrase “thrid way” – neither right nor left but forward. A lot of hokum.

  48. Admin

    I challenge the naysayers to show me where the A3P claims they are socialists or whatever other pejorative you come up with. They DO say America first! And they do believe that White Americans are being discriminated against and need an alternative party to counter that discrimination.

    Show me please. Until then I kindly ask you to shut up!

  49. Kalmytia

    Could someone tell why Fascism is always bad?
    Could anyone even define it? What is Socialism? These are rather vaguely defined ‘-isms’ that are just buzz word labels that are thrown around as if they are very precise defined terms. National Socialism is what the Third Reich’s ideology was called but clearly variant versions of Socialist Nationalism could use that same title. One could call what the Legionary State in Romania wanted was National Socialism but their ideology had almost nothing to do with Racialism and unlike the National Socialists in Germany were a very Orthodox Christian movement. The early British Fascism developed by Oswald Mosley was different in several ways from what Mussolini implemented.
    I can tell you that strictly speaking neither Fascism nor National Socialism can be applied with accuracy to the A3P. They have no intention of discriminating against anyone and only go as far as saying the U.S. basic historic identity is as a European White nation with a historic and important African minority. They want to protect that through ending immigration, abolishing the Fed, bringing our troops home, and implementing protectionist trade policies that would fight Globalization. When I was young back in the ’90’s I knew and was involved with the Skinheads and Neo-Nazis and I can tell you REAL Fascists and Nazis are WAY different than A3P and absolutely hate the A3P and call them sell-outs and traitors.
    National Sovereignty, protecting American jobs and industry, securing and stabilizing our economy through taking control of our currency back into the Treasury and regulating the financial sector, and restoring the historic identity of the U.S. as a European White country. This does not mean that you hate minorities, or want to discriminate against them or oppress them. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with European-Americans taking pride in their heritage and wanting to see their group prosper. This includes me and the majority of Americans and frankly if it weren’t for NAFTA and an elite that wants cheap labor we could help Mexico and Central America to protect their local agriculture and small farmers and industry so that their people don’t have to leave their homes and come to the U.S. to look for work. We want hispanics to be able to stay in their home nations and go back their if they want. What is wrong with that?

  50. paulie

    When I was young back in the ’90?s I knew and was involved with the Skinheads and Neo-Nazis

    And nothing has changed except, maybe, your haircut.

  51. Kalmytia

    Did I say I was a Skinhead? I was involved because both of my older brothers at 15 were recruited into a Skinhead gang. I am not a closed mind person. I listen and give a hearing to anyone with the only exceptions perhaps being a group like NAMBLA. You can also be involved with people without entirely supporting their beliefs. But for someone who throws around labels and prefers to de-humanize and demonize people who ascribe to political ideologies you simply don’t like I don’t expect you to be able to understand. It is easier and probably feels good to just call people nazis, fascists, socialists, communists, etc. without ever precisely describing what a person or group believes and practices. If you want to hate the A3P why not just be precise and honest about it? There is no way you can stretch the definition of fascism far enough to accomodate a group that wants shrink the size of the federal govt., bring troops home, end our involvement in military conflicts, and protect the rights of citizens to have privacy and a non-intrusive govt. Fascism is basically, if you want a general definition of the post-WWI movements that arose and are similar to the integralism seen in an earlier movement in France, Action Francaise, is a political ideology and even philosophy that arose from the Total War policies pursued by Western Nations in WWI. The citizenry, resources, industry and state were organized and devoted to the war effort. People had to work together, sacrifice, and even accept limitations on freedom. The WWI soldiers who came back formed groups which basically saw that if the Total War policies were conducted during peacetime toward making a more idyllic nation where the state was expanded and took greater measures of control over industry and direct control of the financial sector in addition to the Treasury and currency creation and people were organized into an organized corporate nation regimented and directed towards the goals the State wanted for society. That is a lot different than what the A3P wants!

  52. JimDaniels

    Paulie you are just a ‘know-it-all’ reductionist – scumbag. No substance at all! just vomit from regurgitating wikipedia articles. Please no more pretentious, small-minded crap!

  53. Ad Hoc

    Nobody is buying your excuses and rationalizations, nazis, give it up and stand up for what you actually are.

  54. Ad Hoc

    Least of all yourselves. May as well fly the swastika because it shows right through the suits and ties.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *