October
29th 2008
Richard Spencer and Paul Gottfried of TakiMag Endorse Chuck Baldwin
Filmer

Posted under Chuck Baldwin & Constitution Party

Richard Spencer endorses Baldwin here, and Paul Gottfried does so here. Both endorsements are well done. This is great news for Baldwin.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

8 Comments »

8 Responses to “Richard Spencer and Paul Gottfried of TakiMag Endorse Chuck Baldwin”

  1. Weaver on 29 Oct 2008 at 8:48 pm #

    I especially like Spencer’s reminder:

    we would need to already have an established grassroots base and a core intellectual leadership in place.

    Promoting Baldwin is somewhat helpful too though.

  2. Bede on 30 Oct 2008 at 2:48 am #

    Spencer and Gottfried are right.

    The only reason one could support Obama would be in the hope of a hard right backlash. It might be wishful thinking, but at least one’s heart is in the right place.

    But voting for Barry Hussein because you suspect that he may be closet conservative is one of the most comical ideas I’ve ever heard. I don’t know what these people are drinking, but they should offer some to the rest of us.

  3. fellist on 30 Oct 2008 at 11:50 am #

    Has Buchanan officially endorsed anyone? I fear that his latest (very good) article on Obama will serve only to help McCain, who might not so aggressively pursue the policies outlined, but would still take America in that direction.

  4. Weaver on 31 Oct 2008 at 10:56 am #

    It’s pretty clear that Buchanan endorses anti-Obama haha.

    I hope he doesn’t endorse McCain…

    Y’know, if McCain wins, there’ll be nothing stopping him. The folks who should be opposing these globalists will think “we won”.

    People are scared of what blacks might do in the wake of an Obama-loss, but I’m waiting to see what MARS do in the wake of a McCain loss!

    The Fed isn’t all powerful… If people get motivated, they can make a difference. Obama is symbolically of the most extreme “not one of us” possible. Actually, were he to come out as a Muslim, that might be the ultimate, but he’s already got strong ties in that direction as is.

    Ideally Obama would be far ahead, and we’d all be fussing about how scary Obama is. It’s so close now though, that I’m scared McCain will win and will take conservatives full on into the far the left while the country continues to “react against the right wing neocons” by moving even further…

    —

    A reaction won’t necessarily happen under Obama, but it’s certain not to happen under McCain.

    The folks who tell us we shouldn’t hope for Obama haven’t looked at McCain – he’s no better.

    Or if they know something I don’t, I wish they’d kindly explain it to me… All I hear is Obama-fear mongering and pro-Israel prop. McCain is certainly good for Israel, but he’s the perfect storm for America, as best I can tell…

    Again, these political experts don’t like to reveal their mystical wisdom, maybe partly because there’s not as much as first appears and maybe partly because if they reveal too much they’ll be out of the job haha.

  5. Weaver on 31 Oct 2008 at 11:04 am #

    And I’ve been rambling about an Obama reaction here from before I’d seen anyone else do the same, so I’m not merely echoing a mystic political guru. I might be wrong, but I’m my own on this to be sure.

    Some speculate a McCain election would finally, finally drive conservatives out of the GOP, but I’d like an explanation or historical example.

    From what I can tell, there are usually two main divides. And with McCain in power, he’d be at the helm of the “right-wing” divide.

    We’ve heard of Vermont wanting to secede under Bush as Patroon pointed out, but we haven’t heard much from South Carolina. South Carolina thinks Bush is the best they can get, and they’re content to keep quiet.

    —

    It reminds of the BNP fighting the UKIP, saying the UKIP is a faux-nationalist safety valve.

    And as the UKIP and even Conservative Party flounders, the BNP is sure to gain.

    Even if it doesn’t come to power, these shifts force the main parties to either adopt BNP principles and lessen taboos on PC topics, or suffer a revolution.

    Once in power though, the BNP would be sure to be corrupted over time as well – the ambitious just change their rhetoric and go for the new winners… So, party loyalty isn’t what’s important: saving and keeping the country is what’s important.

  6. Weaver on 31 Oct 2008 at 11:09 am #

    Each target group needs an enemy to struggle against and an ideal to struggle towards.

    Obama is a wonderful enemy. McCain is the ultimate worse-case possible ally to defend. And we all know there won’t be a right wing under McCain. The right was loud and ready for rebellion under Clinton, and it’s been quiet under Bush.

    The same people were in power both times, only the rebels changed. We need right wing rebels – ah the pacifist type ;)

    —

    Paul Gottfried is just amazing btw; he’s a sensible Zionist. If the Jewish leadership were of his views, there wouldn’t be any of this complaining about Jews among the far right. The complaints are directed at the Likudniks. They are less than sane or else globalist – it’s one or the other (probably both) without question.

  7. roho on 31 Oct 2008 at 8:20 pm #

    Weaver……………..Change has never come cloaked in “sophistication”.

    Change has always come in “Large Numbers Of Radicals”. (Regardless of their minority status.)

    But, what would happen if it were even larger numbers of radicals in the majority?…………………What if:

    1. The “Million Man March” was a 20 million Christian Man March?

    2. The “Civil Rights Movement” became a 20 Million Man “Fair Rights Movement”?

    3. “Gay Parade Day” became “Shame on You Day” shutting down all business?

    4. 20 million U.S. Citizens showed up in Washington on “Mothers Day” to protest abortions?

    The problem is that conservatives don’t really believe in “PROTEST”!

  8. Weaver on 31 Oct 2008 at 8:28 pm #

    We don’t need protests; we need right wing reactionary radicals. We need MARsians. We also need our own private schools and local ties.

    Prudent conservatives are not what I mean by “right wing”. Those who wish to prudently conserve a revolutionary government are prudently foolish.

    Part of the problem to be sure is as you say, but another facet is simply a confused loyalty to institutions of authority which historically have been legitimate centers of authority but have since been captured and made globalist. And similarly our history has been rewritten to be some sort of liberal individualist ideology… All of this must be thwarted.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply