Red Phillips Article on New American Eagle Party

From IPR Contributor Red Phillips at Conservative Heritage Times:

American Eagle Party Forms from the Remnants (?) of A3P/American Freedom Party

For those who are unaware, the American Third Position party was a pro-white third party that formed a few years back. I said at the time that that was a really bad choice for a name for a rightist American party and that it wouldn’t thrive. Third Positionism is primarily a European concept, and it doesn’t fit well into the political milieu of America or the political consciousness of the American right. Third Positionism and the overt anti-capitalism that inspires it is an idea that is held dear by some white nationalist intellectual types, but it doesn’t resonate with the American right base or accord with American political history.

I believe the leadership of the A3P soon realized this. I don’t know this for a fact, but I suspect they found themselves spending an inordinate amount of time explaining to prospects what Third Positionism is, and likely found that it turned off a lot of people because the right in the US is overwhelmingly pro-free enterprise. (I know that purist libertarians will object to this statement. They’ll point out positions where many rightist endorse measures that are not free market, such as drug prohibition, but I am speaking relatively here. Most American rightists are free-market fanatics compared to the left, right and center in Europe.) So they later changed their name to the American Freedom Party.

I also thought this was a bad choice of names because by calling themselves the Freedom Party, they invited objections from libertarians and others who are actually more freedom focused per se. The primary focus of the A3P/Freedom Party was always protecting the interests of American whites, not freedom as an abstract concept.

And of course there is the racial issue. I am on record and stand by my assertion that there are only two intellectually consistent positions on race/ethnicity. Either everyone gets to be equally ethnocentric (the historic norm), or no one gets to be ethnocentric at all (ideological color-blindness). The modern Cultural Marxist double standard of condemning white consciousness while praising black or Hispanic consciousness, for example, is not intellectually tenable. That said, the reality is that overtly pro-white sentiment is toxic in our current militantly PC milieu, and as such any white racialist enterprise is going to attract primarily the margins.

So now it looks like Merlin Miller, the 2012 Presidential candidate of the AFP, along with some former leaders of the AFP, have left the AFP and formed the American Eagle Party. While the article says the AFP is not defunct, this doesn’t bode well for them to continue on as anything other than a shell. As far as I could find, the AFP website does not address the split. They still have an article promoting Miller’s book. Her is the link to the AEP party website. It definitely has a more American right feel to it than the A3P did, and likely better reflects Miller’s sensibilities since he was a Ron Paul supporter. The linked article says this about the AEP:

The American Eagle Party says it stands for (1) ending U.S. involvement in wars around the world; (2) curtailing immigration; (3) reclaiming constitutional rights for citizens; (4) improving the national economy.

Notice there is no explicit mention of white interests. This statement makes it seem like an essentially paleoconservative party. I’m sure some will call this a cave. Some will call it a necessary concession to political reality. What I don’t know is if there is any back story about conflict among AFP leadership that brought this split about. As is, I’m not sure how it distinguishes itself from the Constitution Party except that it may be less explicitly Christian, thus attempting to occupy space that the America First Party, which is now a website only party as far as I can tell, once inhabited.

I’m not crazy about the American Eagle Party name either. I could write a separate article dealing with how to best name a new party, but I do think American Eagle Party is vastly superior to A3P and more accurate than AFP, as American Eagle is vaguely nationalistic.

We shall see where this leads.

Green_w_o_Adjectives February 12, 2015

“And of course there is the racial issue. I am on record and stand by my assertion that there are only two intellectually consistent positions on race/ethnicity. Either everyone gets to be equally ethnocentric (the historic norm), or no one gets to be ethnocentric at all (ideological color-blindness).”

How about this. You get to be ethnocentric to the degree that your ethnocentricity does not compromise the equal liberty of other people. Yet a political party that is organized around seeking power and privilege for one kind of ethnicity is indeed trying to promote the interest of one ethnicity over others via government interference. “The historic norm” of ethnocentricity is, by and large, not consistent with principles of equal liberty or mutual respect. In that respect, such ethnocentricity tends to get in the way of mutually beneficial economic interaction, as well as potentially cause race wars and/or race conflicts.

What we want to avoid is a culture where people feel OBLIGATED to be ethnocentric, or where ethnocentricity is the dominant policy of the state ideological apparatus (which will inevitably lead to racism and oppression). One of the many problems with racialist and/or social darwinist political movements is they not only promote the right to be ethnocentric privately, they also argue that being ethnocentric and being virtuous and patriotic are one and the same thing, and that virtuous behavior is identifying one’s ego and interests with the claimed race and/or ethnicity. This sort of short-sighted tribalist thinking could, if widely accepted, undermine civilization as we know it.

Capitalist financed ideology has, in the past, exploited racist sentiment when that sentiment was useful for capital accumulation. But now that capitalism is so firmly global in scope, and the interests of elite finance so entwined with one another, racist ideology and capitalist ideology are somewhat at odds. Racial conflicts threaten to disrupt trade, and ending racial/ethnic/religious discrimination is one of the justifying myths for globalist imperialism. So it’s understandable why a political party advocating ethnocentrist policies in the 21st century would also be skeptical of capitalism.

7 Comments

paulie February 13, 2015
I wonder if there is a subtext.
Of course there is. I don’t believe it’s a real split at all. It gives them some additional layers of plausible deniability and perhaps some fundraising options they would not otherwise have. That’s about it.
paulie February 13, 2015
What’s the point of division on the Right? What really divides these parties? Why is it they feel they need to split apart? The members are basically white, male Christians, so it can’t be anything to do with race or religion. They all say they pay honor to Ronal Reagan and Barry Goldwater. They generally want the same things.
I don’t think you are correct. The racist movement is a mix of Christians, Pagans, atheists and devil worshippers. They don’t really care for free markets for the reasons GwoA and I discussed (or at least most of them don’t) and I don’t think most of them are huge fans of Goldwater or even Reagan necessarily. And naturally, I can see why conservative parties wouldn’t want to unify with, much less be led by, open (or in this case somewhat open) racists, as it would rather limit their appeal. There is some overlap between their constituencies, but it is far from total.
paulie February 13, 2015
How about this. You get to be ethnocentric to the degree that your ethnocentricity does not compromise the equal liberty of other people. Yet a political party that is organized around seeking power and privilege for one kind of ethnicity is indeed trying to promote the interest of one ethnicity over others via government interference. “The historic norm” of ethnocentricity is, by and large, not consistent with principles of equal liberty or mutual respect. In that respect, such ethnocentricity tends to get in the way of mutually beneficial economic interaction, as well as potentially cause race wars and/or race conflicts.
Agreed!
What we want to avoid is a culture where people feel OBLIGATED to be ethnocentric, or where ethnocentricity is the dominant policy of the state ideological apparatus (which will inevitably lead to racism and oppression). One of the many problems with racialist and/or social darwinist political movements is they not only promote the right to be ethnocentric privately, they also argue that being ethnocentric and being virtuous and patriotic are one and the same thing, and that virtuous behavior is identifying one’s ego and interests with the claimed race and/or ethnicity. This sort of short-sighted tribalist thinking could, if widely accepted, undermine civilization as we know it.
Right again.
Promoting peaceful free trade (without international trade management agencies and agreements) and freedom of migration is the best ways to end racism, poverty and war. See http://openborders.info/
Naturally, racists, fascists and nationalist warmongers of all stripes are strongly opposed to this.
Racial conflicts threaten to disrupt trade,
And vice versa!
Green_w_o_Adjectives February 12, 2015
“And of course there is the racial issue. I am on record and stand by my assertion that there are only two intellectually consistent positions on race/ethnicity. Either everyone gets to be equally ethnocentric (the historic norm), or no one gets to be ethnocentric at all (ideological color-blindness).”
How about this. You get to be ethnocentric to the degree that your ethnocentricity does not compromise the equal liberty of other people. Yet a political party that is organized around seeking power and privilege for one kind of ethnicity is indeed trying to promote the interest of one ethnicity over others via government interference. “The historic norm” of ethnocentricity is, by and large, not consistent with principles of equal liberty or mutual respect. In that respect, such ethnocentricity tends to get in the way of mutually beneficial economic interaction, as well as potentially cause race wars and/or race conflicts.
What we want to avoid is a culture where people feel OBLIGATED to be ethnocentric, or where ethnocentricity is the dominant policy of the state ideological apparatus (which will inevitably lead to racism and oppression). One of the many problems with racialist and/or social darwinist political movements is they not only promote the right to be ethnocentric privately, they also argue that being ethnocentric and being virtuous and patriotic are one and the same thing, and that virtuous behavior is identifying one’s ego and interests with the claimed race and/or ethnicity. This sort of short-sighted tribalist thinking could, if widely accepted, undermine civilization as we know it.
Capitalist financed ideology has, in the past, exploited racist sentiment when that sentiment was useful for capital accumulation. But now that capitalism is so firmly global in scope, and the interests of elite finance so entwined with one another, racist ideology and capitalist ideology are somewhat at odds. Racial conflicts threaten to disrupt trade, and ending racial/ethnic/religious discrimination is one of the justifying myths for globalist imperialism. So it’s understandable why a political party advocating ethnocentrist policies in the 21st century would also be skeptical of capitalism.
Sean Scallon February 12, 2015
Man all these parties, one can hardly keep track of them…
I had never even heard of A3P until this post but it sounds like they endorse a mild version of national socialism (I’m not saying their Nazis) which, yeah, would be a non-starter on the Right, even in capitalist-skeptic paleo circles. Maybe there is a niche to be fill politically with Buchananite party (it’s certainly not the AFP) but it’s just that, a niche and hardly a very big one.
What’s curious about all this “splitting” on the Right is the fact that, at least on the Left, one can discerne its divisions based on one’s interpretations of Marx or how they feel about Mao or Fidel or Stalin or their identity politics. What’s the point of division on the Right? What really divides these parties? Why is it they feel they need to split apart? The members are basically white, male Christians, so it can’t be anything to do with race or religion. They all say they pay honor to Ronal Reagan and Barry Goldwater. They generally want the same things. So what is it? Are their that many more egotists on the Right than the Left or just more wanna-be Napoleons? Upon reading this one is just tempted to to throw their hands up in the air and cry “Splitter!” The American Freedom Party and American Eagle Party? Just try to decern the difference all you Judean People’s Front/People’s Front of Judea fans.
And to think Cody Quirk tried to unite this bunch….
redphillips February 11, 2015
Their statement is not acrimonious on the surface, but there are a few things there that make me scratch my head. I wonder if there is a subtext.
Jed Ziggler Post author | February 11, 2015
“As far as I could find, the AFP website does not address the split.”
They now have: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/american3rdposition/iyQd/~3/Il9by_1VjaY/
“As is, I’m not sure how it distinguishes itself from the Constitution Party except that it may be less explicitly Christian, thus attempting to occupy space that the America First Party, which is now a website only party as far as I can tell, once inhabited.”
Politics1 would lead one to the believe America First Party is practically inactive, but in 2012 they had a candidate on the ballot for U.S. Senate in New Jersey, and in 2014 they had a candidate on the ballot for U.S. House in New York. I see no evidence that these were not party candidates. I have tried contacting Politics1 to correct this error, but I have been ignored.

Comments are closed.