In a previous post which I will not identify, a person identified as Nick Chappell, who I believe is associated with the American Nazi Party, posted a comment informing me that I had forgotten to include another pro-White candidate in my list of those who ran during the 2010 general election. Chappell even provided me with a good link. The candidate in question finished a solid fourth in a four-candidate field. Chappell implied that this candidate had official WN support. (To prevent the candidate from being involuntarily outed, I have since deleted Chappell's comment)
So I investigated, and found the official campaign website of this candidate. But while this candidate does have a solid paleoconservative platform that would benefit the White community, there are NO references to any WN groups on his website. This leads me to believe he's one of the ANP's "under the radar" candidates. ANP Chairman Rocky Suhayda has previously stated that the ANP intended to run some "under the radar" candidates.
But here's the dilemma: If I give publicity to an "under the radar" pro-White candidate on an openly White nationalist blog, then the candidate is no longer "under the radar". Political opponents could Google his name, find this site, and instantly use the connection to market the candidate as a "white supremacist" or "neo-Nazi". Goodbye, credibility.
"Under the radar" means precisely that; UNDER THE RADAR. Consequently, I will not publicize an "under the radar" pro-White candidate on this blog as long as he or she chooses to remain under the radar. If I get a different reason to publicize the candidate, I'll do so, but I won't reveal any official WN connections to an "under the radar" candidate.
Friday, November 05, 2010
American Nazi Party Vs. National Socialist Movement: How Denominationalism Unnecessarily Divides The National Socialist Community
At present, we have four national socialist activist organizations in the United States. In order of public awareness, they are the National Socialist Movement (NSM), the American Nazi Party (ANP), the American National Socialist Party (ANSP), and the National Socialist American Labor Party (NSALP), which was recently re-started.
Because national socialists use the swastika as a test of personal commitment and refuse to opportunistically throw Adolf Hitler under the bus in exchange for a few Scooby snacks from the SPLC, they reap criticism and derision not only from mainstream society, but also from within the ranks of the greater White nationalist community. Many of the so-called "valuable intellectual properties" will refer to national socialists as "costumed clowns". In response, many national socialists tend to develop confrontational attitudes and a siege mentality, further fueled by the fact that they most frequently find themselves directly confronted by anti-racist activists. In short, national socialists have a tendency to be "doers" as well as "thinkers".
Unfortunately, this passion is sometimes misdirected inward. Some national socialists will actually spend more time dogging and criticizing other national socialists than the enemies of the White community. This denominationalism can actually hinder collective action, and is exploited by antifa.
An example of this denominationalism is provided in the N.S. Acumen blog. John Taylor Bowles, the S.A. Political Advisor for the ANP, provided a short analysis of the political campaigns of Dan Schruender (ANP) and Jeff Hall (NSM). In a post entitled "National Socialist Candidate For School Board Receives 10% Of The Vote!", Bowles lauds Schruender for his competitive performance in the Rialto School Board election, writing, "This is pretty good for a first time NS candidate especially in California where White people have become a minority race". A complete roundup on the performance of all pro-White candidates is available HERE.
I couldn't agree more; it was a gutsy performance by Schruender. So since Bowles gave Schruender a pat on the back for getting 9.64 percent of the vote in his race, I assumed he would pay some tribute to the NSM's Jeff Hall for the 27.73 percent he received in his race. Wrong! The title of Bowles' post, "Has The NSM Commander Lost All Sense Of Reality? The NSM Website Is Celebrating Its Election Loss! WTF?" conveys precisely the opposite impression. Bowles writes, "Losing an election is nothing to celebrate about no matter how many votes were cast for the candidate. The front page of the NSM website is hooraying about this election loss. What idiots!" Bowles was referring to this post by Jeff Schoep.
Wait a minute! Why would John Taylor Bowles praise Dan Schruender for losing an election, yet criticize Jeff Hall for also losing an election? Last time I checked, 27.73 percent was a bigger number than 9.64 percent. Admittedly, Schruender had the tougher job, running in a field of six candidates while Hall ran in a field of only two candidates, but if Schruender deserves a pat on the back for a credible performance, doesn't Jeff Hall also deserve credit as well? Dan Schruender himself seems to think so; he pays tribute to Hall's performance HERE.
The distinction is driven by Bowles' attitude towards NSM Commander Jeff Schoep. He continues to criticize Schoep, which is one thing, but then he drags the entire NSM into his criticism, referring to them as "trash troopers" and "race-mixers" and "Satanists". He holds the entire membership responsible for the perceived sins of its leadership. The frustrating aspect to all this is that John Taylor Bowles himself is a knowledgeable and proven activist who actually ran for President. He takes the national socialist message to high schools and receives favorable reviews. The ANP has become more prominent and effective since he joined it. Yet anyone who doesn't see things his way is considered a heretic. The NSM is not going to change no matter how much he bitches about it; shouldn't he instead be spending the time promoting the ANP and continuing to educate the greater public about national socialism?
Jeff Hall's pro-White credentials are unimpeachable. He stood toe-to-toe against Brown Berets in Riverside in October 2009. He confronted antifa who invaded his Riverside neighborhood in May 2010, and drove them out. He's engaged in operations against illegal aliens along the Mexican border. Just how much more must Jeff Hall do to prove himself to Bowles?
Both Dan Schruender and Jeff Hall have one thing in common: They publicly ran for elective office under their own names, exposing themselves to public scrutiny and criticism. They chose to get off the bench and get in the game. They deserve EQUAL credit for their activism.
Because national socialists use the swastika as a test of personal commitment and refuse to opportunistically throw Adolf Hitler under the bus in exchange for a few Scooby snacks from the SPLC, they reap criticism and derision not only from mainstream society, but also from within the ranks of the greater White nationalist community. Many of the so-called "valuable intellectual properties" will refer to national socialists as "costumed clowns". In response, many national socialists tend to develop confrontational attitudes and a siege mentality, further fueled by the fact that they most frequently find themselves directly confronted by anti-racist activists. In short, national socialists have a tendency to be "doers" as well as "thinkers".
Unfortunately, this passion is sometimes misdirected inward. Some national socialists will actually spend more time dogging and criticizing other national socialists than the enemies of the White community. This denominationalism can actually hinder collective action, and is exploited by antifa.
An example of this denominationalism is provided in the N.S. Acumen blog. John Taylor Bowles, the S.A. Political Advisor for the ANP, provided a short analysis of the political campaigns of Dan Schruender (ANP) and Jeff Hall (NSM). In a post entitled "National Socialist Candidate For School Board Receives 10% Of The Vote!", Bowles lauds Schruender for his competitive performance in the Rialto School Board election, writing, "This is pretty good for a first time NS candidate especially in California where White people have become a minority race". A complete roundup on the performance of all pro-White candidates is available HERE.
I couldn't agree more; it was a gutsy performance by Schruender. So since Bowles gave Schruender a pat on the back for getting 9.64 percent of the vote in his race, I assumed he would pay some tribute to the NSM's Jeff Hall for the 27.73 percent he received in his race. Wrong! The title of Bowles' post, "Has The NSM Commander Lost All Sense Of Reality? The NSM Website Is Celebrating Its Election Loss! WTF?" conveys precisely the opposite impression. Bowles writes, "Losing an election is nothing to celebrate about no matter how many votes were cast for the candidate. The front page of the NSM website is hooraying about this election loss. What idiots!" Bowles was referring to this post by Jeff Schoep.
Wait a minute! Why would John Taylor Bowles praise Dan Schruender for losing an election, yet criticize Jeff Hall for also losing an election? Last time I checked, 27.73 percent was a bigger number than 9.64 percent. Admittedly, Schruender had the tougher job, running in a field of six candidates while Hall ran in a field of only two candidates, but if Schruender deserves a pat on the back for a credible performance, doesn't Jeff Hall also deserve credit as well? Dan Schruender himself seems to think so; he pays tribute to Hall's performance HERE.
The distinction is driven by Bowles' attitude towards NSM Commander Jeff Schoep. He continues to criticize Schoep, which is one thing, but then he drags the entire NSM into his criticism, referring to them as "trash troopers" and "race-mixers" and "Satanists". He holds the entire membership responsible for the perceived sins of its leadership. The frustrating aspect to all this is that John Taylor Bowles himself is a knowledgeable and proven activist who actually ran for President. He takes the national socialist message to high schools and receives favorable reviews. The ANP has become more prominent and effective since he joined it. Yet anyone who doesn't see things his way is considered a heretic. The NSM is not going to change no matter how much he bitches about it; shouldn't he instead be spending the time promoting the ANP and continuing to educate the greater public about national socialism?
Jeff Hall's pro-White credentials are unimpeachable. He stood toe-to-toe against Brown Berets in Riverside in October 2009. He confronted antifa who invaded his Riverside neighborhood in May 2010, and drove them out. He's engaged in operations against illegal aliens along the Mexican border. Just how much more must Jeff Hall do to prove himself to Bowles?
Both Dan Schruender and Jeff Hall have one thing in common: They publicly ran for elective office under their own names, exposing themselves to public scrutiny and criticism. They chose to get off the bench and get in the game. They deserve EQUAL credit for their activism.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Billy Roper's Write-In Campaign For Governor Of Arkansas Not Quite As Successful As Lisa Murkowski's Write-In Campaign For Senator; NSM's Jeff Hall The Most Successful Of All Pro-White Candidates
Update: Have now included the results of the mayoral campaigns by Canadian White activists Paul Fromm and Tomasz Winnicki, posted towards the bottom of this post.
All of America is abuzz over the apparent success of Lisa Murkowski's write-in campaign to remain one of Alaska's U.S. senators. With 99 percent of the votes counted, "Write-In" has 41 percent, Joe Miller 34.2 percent, and Scott McAdams 23.74 percent. It is assumed that the overwhelming majority of "Write-In" votes are for Lisa Murkowski, anywhere from 90-95 percent, but the final tally won't be known until November 18th.
However, Lisa Murkowski's example is hardly representative of the average write-in candidate. After all, she's not only an incumbent U.S. Senator, but she "married" herself to various corporation, in particular Alaska Native corporations who get no-bid government contracts, as well as to the Alaska Federation of Natives, in order to buy her way to possible victory. Much more representative of the typical write-in candidate is the experience of Billy Roper, who ran for governor of Arkansas under the auspices of his Nationalist Party of America. Roper announced his candidacy early, crisscrossed the state in search of support, deployed numerous yard signs, and maintained a vigorous online outreach. Roper reported that many prospective White constituents reacted favorably to his candidacy. Some thought Roper could pull as many as 10,000 votes. In fact, his candidacy threw such a scare into Republican also-ran Jim Keet that Keet threatened to no-show a critical candidate forum if Roper showed up. Roper ultimately decided not to show up.
So how did Billy Roper's campaign work out? The Arkansas election returns are filtering in now, and with 89 percent of the counties reporting, the governor's race shows that incumbent Mike Beebe stuffed Jim Keet. It also shows an aggregate total of 668 votes for all write-in candidates combined. However, Arkansas election officials have not completed the task of counting the write-in votes by candidate; Roper obviously got more than two votes. But I would think that with all the publicity generated by the Roper campaign, he most likely got at least half the write-in votes, and perhaps as many as two-thirds.
Nevertheless, Roper's candidacy was still worthwhile because he ran openly as a White racial activist under his own name, his dress and demeanor blended in with the population, and he reaped valuable publicity for the White racialist cause.
So how did other White activists do with their campaign? The Indiana Division of elections reports that Tom Metzger earned nine votes in his write-in campaign for U.S House District 3, finishing fourth in a field of five.
In the non-partisan race for the Monongalia County (WV) Board of Education, Harry Bertram finished third in a field of three with 2,546 votes, or 14.03 percent of the total. Bertram received some help from the American Third Position Party.
In the non-partisan race for the Rialto (CA) School Board, Dan Schruender has finished sixth in a field of six, but with a credible 1,807 votes, or 9.64 percent of the total. The fifth place finisher was only 442 votes ahead of him (read media story in the Press-Enterprise). All votes have been counted in this race.
But perhaps the best performance was by National Socialist Movement activist Jeff Hall, who ran for the non-partisan District 2 seat on the Western Municipal Water District Board. With 87 percent of the votes counted, Hall received a very credible 6,303 votes, or 27.73 percent of the total. While Hall was initially accused of running merely to give the NSM public exposure, a lengthy platform statement showed that Hall was quite conversant on water issues, and should be considered a serious candidate. Over 27 percent of voters agreed.
By the way, in his once-vocal campaign for Missouri's U.S. Senate seat which gave us serious nationwide publicity, the votes are all in, and Frazier Glenn Miller got two votes.
On October 25th, Canadian free speech activist and White patriot Paul Fromm finished 9th in a field of 17 candidates for mayor of Mississauga, Ontario. Fromm received 917 votes, constituting 0.65 percent of the total. On the same day, another Canadian White activist, Tomasz Winnicki, finished 12th in a field of 15 candidates for mayor of London, Ontario. Winnicki received 234 votes, constituting 0.23 percent of the total.
Hats off to all those White activists who stepped up to the plate and ran for office.
All of America is abuzz over the apparent success of Lisa Murkowski's write-in campaign to remain one of Alaska's U.S. senators. With 99 percent of the votes counted, "Write-In" has 41 percent, Joe Miller 34.2 percent, and Scott McAdams 23.74 percent. It is assumed that the overwhelming majority of "Write-In" votes are for Lisa Murkowski, anywhere from 90-95 percent, but the final tally won't be known until November 18th.
However, Lisa Murkowski's example is hardly representative of the average write-in candidate. After all, she's not only an incumbent U.S. Senator, but she "married" herself to various corporation, in particular Alaska Native corporations who get no-bid government contracts, as well as to the Alaska Federation of Natives, in order to buy her way to possible victory. Much more representative of the typical write-in candidate is the experience of Billy Roper, who ran for governor of Arkansas under the auspices of his Nationalist Party of America. Roper announced his candidacy early, crisscrossed the state in search of support, deployed numerous yard signs, and maintained a vigorous online outreach. Roper reported that many prospective White constituents reacted favorably to his candidacy. Some thought Roper could pull as many as 10,000 votes. In fact, his candidacy threw such a scare into Republican also-ran Jim Keet that Keet threatened to no-show a critical candidate forum if Roper showed up. Roper ultimately decided not to show up.
So how did Billy Roper's campaign work out? The Arkansas election returns are filtering in now, and with 89 percent of the counties reporting, the governor's race shows that incumbent Mike Beebe stuffed Jim Keet. It also shows an aggregate total of 668 votes for all write-in candidates combined. However, Arkansas election officials have not completed the task of counting the write-in votes by candidate; Roper obviously got more than two votes. But I would think that with all the publicity generated by the Roper campaign, he most likely got at least half the write-in votes, and perhaps as many as two-thirds.
Nevertheless, Roper's candidacy was still worthwhile because he ran openly as a White racial activist under his own name, his dress and demeanor blended in with the population, and he reaped valuable publicity for the White racialist cause.
So how did other White activists do with their campaign? The Indiana Division of elections reports that Tom Metzger earned nine votes in his write-in campaign for U.S House District 3, finishing fourth in a field of five.
In the non-partisan race for the Monongalia County (WV) Board of Education, Harry Bertram finished third in a field of three with 2,546 votes, or 14.03 percent of the total. Bertram received some help from the American Third Position Party.
In the non-partisan race for the Rialto (CA) School Board, Dan Schruender has finished sixth in a field of six, but with a credible 1,807 votes, or 9.64 percent of the total. The fifth place finisher was only 442 votes ahead of him (read media story in the Press-Enterprise). All votes have been counted in this race.
But perhaps the best performance was by National Socialist Movement activist Jeff Hall, who ran for the non-partisan District 2 seat on the Western Municipal Water District Board. With 87 percent of the votes counted, Hall received a very credible 6,303 votes, or 27.73 percent of the total. While Hall was initially accused of running merely to give the NSM public exposure, a lengthy platform statement showed that Hall was quite conversant on water issues, and should be considered a serious candidate. Over 27 percent of voters agreed.
By the way, in his once-vocal campaign for Missouri's U.S. Senate seat which gave us serious nationwide publicity, the votes are all in, and Frazier Glenn Miller got two votes.
On October 25th, Canadian free speech activist and White patriot Paul Fromm finished 9th in a field of 17 candidates for mayor of Mississauga, Ontario. Fromm received 917 votes, constituting 0.65 percent of the total. On the same day, another Canadian White activist, Tomasz Winnicki, finished 12th in a field of 15 candidates for mayor of London, Ontario. Winnicki received 234 votes, constituting 0.23 percent of the total.
Hats off to all those White activists who stepped up to the plate and ran for office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)