New Political Party: "American Third Position"

[JW]

Check it out, see what you think: 

Quote:  "Mission Statement:  The American Third Position exists to represent the political interests of White Americans."

http://american3p.org/

[folkandfaith]

Check it out, see what you think: 

Quote:  "Mission Statement:  The American Third Position exists to represent the political interests of White Americans."

http://american3p.org/

JW,

I've seen the site.. Good looking site for sure, but very little substance to it other then a few "briefs" on certain topics.

Some concerns I have with it is their spokesperson.. Wow. Not very well put together at all. Went to school out here at BYU-Idaho, there again - if he was schooled at BYU I can pretty well tell you his religious stance which is in total contrast to his political views. There again, no "religious" (for lack of a better term that all would understand) stance openly declared for the organisation. If they think they can have any political clout if that is their game plan, they are kidding themselves there as well.

If I recall, there was an "american 3rd position" quite awhile back. Actually, I am thinking that it was ran by a fellow that wrote a couple articles for FNF! and BLR both. I would have to go back and look in my box of books and newsletters out in the garage but pretty sure.. As far as I know, they have nothing in common so there agin it seems like a new attempt at riding on the work of someone else.

If they came out with an open religious stance or declaration and got a new spokesperson for the camera's - they might have something...

[Gewisse]

The US party system is an even tougher nut to crack than the UK's! I wish them well, but can't help thinking they'll be just another flash in the pan. What happened to the American National Party which was established a couple of years ago?

[mkate83]

I checked out the link. It's refreshing material for sure although I feel that the time for government intervention is gone and that political parties cause a drain on resources. I will keep an eye on these guys though because it is a bit thrilling to see the amount of supporters there end up being and how many new people these ideas will be exposed to. Thanks for posting.

[folkandfaith]

I checked out the link. It's refreshing material for sure although I feel that the time for government intervention is gone and that political parties cause a drain on resources. I will keep an eye on these guys though because it is a bit thrilling to see the amount of supporters there end up being and how many new people these ideas will be exposed to. Thanks for posting.

It's an odd situation that we have now for sure... The last presidential election pretty well showed that a presidential election that ran on an alternative view won't ever be allowed to happen (IMO). Perhaps Ross Perot's campaign showed such as well back then too, I don't recall too much in detail on that as I was but a kid in highschool first getting interested in politics and the new world order and a lot of people just scoffed Perot off and laughed at him though at the time it didn't occur to most of us that the joke was on us.

The last election though it didn't get anyone a anti-establishment president elected, though it did help to foster and create such a movement built around the core ideas he ran on. That is something that Perot never did...Parts of that movement are now running on campaigns locally where they can actually help to change something. We'll likewise see what becomes of such.

[blutausbeherit]

Speaking of Perot, didn't they change the rules and format of the presidential debates after his bid? I seem to remember the debates were hosted by the womens club of america or something, and they allowed any viable candidate to participate, and now it's much stricter, as to dissuade third party-ers from having any real chance. I might be mistaken, however

[folkandfaith]

Speaking of Perot, didn't they change the rules and format of the presidential debates after his bid? I seem to remember the debates were hosted by the womens club of america or something, and they allowed any viable candidate to participate, and now it's much stricter, as to dissuade third party-ers from having any real chance. I might be mistaken, however

You are correct. They did. This is why Ron Paul ran on the Republican ticket in '08. Ross Perot has since showed little to no interest in third party candidates even those running on his platform. "Jesse Ventura" tried getting his support when running for governor and met with him at his home. Perot was not really interested in such when he should've been totally psyched about the prospects of such. Ventura's came along way since then, still don't like his "socially liberal fiscally conservative" platform but nonetheless he has shown some real progress it would seem.

As far as the LWV - they were the ones that were originally hosting the debates, only later to quit in disgust of how rigged it was. See:

In 1984, the cooperation between the Republican and Democratic parties led to a joint veto of almost 100 proposed panelists for the first debate. The following election cycle saw more of a grab for control by the two major parties. The campaigns of George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis met without the knowledge of the League of Women Voters (LWV) and drafted a memorandum of understanding. This secret document specified who would be allowed sit in the audience during the '88 debates and who would serve as panelists, as well as abolished follow-up questions. Under these terms, the LWV would be left to merely host and would have no say in how the debates were held.

In disgust, the League of Women Voters exposed the memorandum and resigned as hosts of presidential debates, citing the "fraud on the American voter" being carried out by the two major parties [source: PBS]. To fill the void left by the LWV, the Democrats and Republicans formed the joint nonprofit bipartisan organization the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).

The CPD is the only organization allowed to host presidential debates. It schedules three to four debates, held after the nominating conventions, including at least one vice-presidential debate. Usually a year before the debates begin, the locations (including alternate locations) and the moderators are announced. Party debates during the primaries and those held before the conventions are often called presidential debates, but they aren't official unless the CPD is involved, even if these campaigns have similar agreements with the networks hosting and broadcasting the CPD debates.

[blutausbeherit]

Yeah I see what you mean. It's sad that people see this happening and aren't getting upset about it. Just more tunnel vision and typical government behavior. I wonder what it will take for people to wake up.

[folkandfaith]

A couple of replies that I left on the topic at SF. Seems they are getting quite a good bit of attention already and for the life of me I really can't see why. I'll include a few others relevant replies as well:

I don't see much Third Position'ism within their views. A very weakend or watered down version if any. Amazing that they are now getting so much airplay amongst WN'ists whereas those that have been 3P for a decade or more and have battled it out and done all that they could to promote 3P'ism, e.g groups such as American Front (before they sold out and went non-3P), Folk And Faith, Beyond Left and Right, etc etc., got no airplay and little to no support. I can't for the life of me figure it out except that none of the aforementioned groups had any professors leading them and were just working class soldiers.

Actually one of the things that stuck in my craw in the beginning was the fact that there was a college professor and a lawyer involved. " usually " those are two groups who enjoy their positions and want to make sure whatever new thing they endorse helps to solidify them. Also...as a rule..college professors are great at teaching and really suck as doing much else. Kind of like both lawyers and Doctors in their professions. I used to love it when lawyer friends tried to give me business advice. Their advice always sucked and the only reason they were successful at all was because they had a degree that allowed for them to skim off the top of our legal system. Designed by lawyers for the purpose no doubt. However..those of that were in those professions that had both ability to organize and common sense...were something to be reckoned with. So I think we have to give them a shot to prove themselves. Like anything whatever something is going to be will very soon be evident.

Those that do and are successful in many different things they try are usually just gutsy folk with a lot of common sense and the willingness to hit the ball without measuring out a hundred times if it will land where they want it do or not break the window of the government official down the street.

You make some good points on past organizations not getting credit, but that is just the way of the world. It's certainly the way of capitalistic world..where the motto should be..take credit for someone else's thing and make a buck if you can. There is usually a reason. In business it usually means a person is under funded. In politics or idea promoting .. If whatever they were didn't touch enough of a spark to gain enough support, then it just was not meant to be and folks should move on and get past it. Sometimes a group like this will gain a lot of support in the beginning and set the stage for another group to really take the lead. Many times...it's one of those groups that's been quietly paying it's dues and waiting.

I have spoken to a few of these folk and they appear to be sincere and I think we can't cut down their plan to distance themselves in the beginning from some other types of things that have been done in the past. Though..I might also ad that lack of boldness will get you nothing. I have said it more than a few times here. If you are going to use the word white in conjunction with rights...you will not ever be able to nice or fool our enemies both traitors and colored that you are anything but a supremacist. They can't be fooled and this will include white traitors and trojan horses who can't wait to look good to their jew or liberal friends by putting the screw to a fellow white man.

radical is just a label to get used to when dealing with whites right to exist. It's sad that our thinking used to be the majority..but for lust of money and easy of living..we handed it all over to the legend makers that teach in school and entertainers. That type of thinking even permeates this very board as the recent thread on " homosexuality " will attest. There are some of us that will never join or support any organization that is light on certain things like homosexuality, and other filth that is little different than the society we now live in. Better to lose the entire thing than usher in nothing more than a replacement for what we have now. Being soft or understanding on those and other such things are symptoms of a society in decay, not the signs of a healthy society.

I'm am less concerned with what " real " 3pism actually is than how " real " W.N. can take hold and move forward out of the talk and personal entertainment phase into the bold phase where common sense is used to gain more than the fringe. So far after having looked a bit closer with the A3P...I think their thinking is right on much. I'm still waiting to see if the action follows on any large level.

Third Positionism has always been groups or ideas such as:

http://neopolitical.com/default.aspx

http://folkandfaith.com

http://tinyurl.com/splc3p

http://tinyurl.com/mgf3vz

[folkandfaith]

Originally Posted by folkandfaith
Amazing that they are now getting so much airplay amongst WN'ists whereas those that have been 3P for a decade or more and have battled it out and done all that they could to promote 3P'ism, e.g groups such as American Front (before they sold out and went non-3P), Folk And Faith, Beyond Left and Right, etc etc., got no airplay and little to no support. I can't for the life of me figure it out except that none of the aforementioned groups had any professors leading them and were just working class soldiers.

The reason I joined the A3P (and I joined even before Kevin MacDonald was on board) had nothing to do with "wanting to be 3P." I joined because this was the first opportunity in my voting lifetime to join a group which explicitly promotes the interests of Whites AND which is structured to get on the ballot and participate in the mainstream national political process.

None of the groups you mentioned are/were positioned for ballot access.

I didn't care for the name at first, but it's grown on me. Their platform mostly matches up to my own ideals, but even if it didn't, I'd still join as long as the racial element was solid. I would just as quickly have joined the "Far Right Wing White Folk's Party" if it were a solid group structured to be a legitimate political party throughout the entire U.S.A.

[folkandfaith]

The reason I joined the A3P (and I joined even before Kevin MacDonald was on board) had nothing to do with "wanting to be 3P." I joined because this was the first opportunity in my voting lifetime to join a group which explicitly promotes the interests of Whites AND which is structured to get on the ballot and participate in the mainstream national political process.

None of the groups you mentioned are/were positioned for ballot access.

I didn't care for the name at first, but it's grown on me. Their platform mostly matches up to my own ideals, but even if it didn't, I'd still join as long as the racial element was solid. I would just as quickly have joined the "Far Right Wing White Folk's Party" if it were a solid group structured to be a legitimate political party throughout the entire U.S.A.

None of the other groups believed much in voting or ballot access as a way to save our folk or even change america. Myself, I have long been anti- such measures. In 2008 however, I took a dive into the deep end. I joined up with the "Ron Paul revolution", most in our meetup even knew of my views on separatism and that I was pretty much a Third Position decentralist. I even had some good conversations about what it was and its history and even got into separatist issues as well.

I put every nickel I had into bumper stickers, t-shirts, signs, used every nickel I could spare to buy fliers and professional looking material for distribution, I went door to door distributing them and gave them out at work, put signs up all over our town and in towns surrounding ours, wrote letters to the editor to get attention to the campaign, bought RP's last book to give out to others and for the first time in my life actually gave every FRN I had to actually give to an official campaign. At the very last stage of the campaign, unlike Derek Black, I ran and actually got elected as a local Precinct Committeeman for the republican party. I kinda felt dirty doing it as I had long railed against both parties and being owned and controlled and being nothing but pressure release valves for the average citizen. Nonetheless, I ran and got elected. The duties of such though were nothing like I had wanted to be part of. It was selling tickets for the Lincoln Day republican party gatherings - King Lincoln of all people, a man who destroyed states rights and sovereignty. It was helping local yahoo's who were in no way revolutionaries, likely not racialist, and for the most part not even really die-hard Constitutonalists. In the end, I pretty much just stopped going to the events as it wasn't what I wanted to be involved in.

Ron Paul had so much support though that it was amazing. Most of his ideas were grounded in solid truth. Not 3P'ism by a long shot, but there were certainly many things that he supported that were very Third Position such as allowing for local and competing currencies and barter and trade and even allowing for distributism which has long been the economic platform of the Third Position.

If he and all of his support couldn't get someone elected to such a position what makes us think that we could?

Granted, since he lost it has taken on a life of its own with people running for local offices on the same or similar platforms. Recently this came to a head in Texas with the Debra Medina campaign being nearly identical to his. She lost as well. It has further made me realise the difference between Third Position/National Revolutionary ideologies and electioneering.

3P has pretty much came to the conclusion that victory won't be won by voting our way out of the mess. Instead of such, it has promoted timeless alternatives such as buying up land to run local co-ops and alternatives on, working with local and like-minded businesses, trying to start independent businesses and co-ops as a means of producing an income and not being a slave to the bosses, communities producing their own currencies (E.G. Ithaca Hours, River Hours etc) , folk centered charities, homeschooling alternatives or "folk schools", etc. Some groups such as the OLD American Front when they were 3P promoted this, Sigrdrifa (not sure whatever happened to them), Volksfront (at least on their website promoted ideas such as this) and other fledgling groups such as Folk And Faith, Neo-Political and other non-organisation websites promoting such alternatives.

A few links on true and Traditional Third Positionism might be of interest:

http://folkandfaith.com/articles/articles.shtml
http://www.folkandfaith.com/articles/community.shtml

Victoria wrote:
"I would just as quickly have joined the "Far Right Wing White Folk's Party" if it were a solid group structured to be a legitimate political party throughout the entire U.S.A."

No offense but I guess this is what irks me about them and others jumping onto the 3P name - that they really have no interest in 3position'ism.

[americanfront]

I checked out the link. It's refreshing material for sure although I feel that the time for government intervention is gone and that political parties cause a drain on resources. I will keep an eye on these guys though because it is a bit thrilling to see the amount of supporters there end up being and how many new people these ideas will be exposed to. Thanks for posting.

It's an odd situation that we have now for sure... The last presidential election pretty well showed that a presidential election that ran on an alternative view won't ever be allowed to happen (IMO). Perhaps Ross Perot's campaign showed such as well back then too, I don't recall too much in detail on that as I was but a kid in highschool first getting interested in politics and the new world order and a lot of people just scoffed Perot off and laughed at him though at the time it didn't occur to most of us that the joke was on us.

The last election though it didn't get anyone a anti-establishment president elected, though it did help to foster and create such a movement built around the core ideas he ran on. That is something that Perot never did...Parts of that movement are now running on campaigns locally where they can actually help to change something. We'll likewise see what becomes of such.

Ross is a nut case...if he didn't drop out (and back in)...he could have had a good showing....or even stronger showing for that matter.

Who knows what is at work in his case??

[folkandfaith]

Ross is a nut case...if he didn't drop out (and back in)...he could have had a good showing....or even stronger showing for that matter.

Who knows what is at work in his case??

I don't agree with that whole "socially liberal fiscal conservative" view that seems like is now picking up steam. This was Perot's stance obviously (i.e. ok with homosexuality, ok with women murdering their fetus state children and ok with my tax dollars paying for it, supporter of gun control, etc) and likewise Ventura whose views on that sort of thing were pretty identical. Asides from that though, it does make one wonder as to what his true intentions were with the dropping out of politics and then attempting to come back in and pretend that all was well. He was interesting from what I recall but definitely far from being a sort of Ron Paul traditional paleo-conservative.