A New Call of the Wild: The American Third Position Party

Tom Sunic


Merlin Miller, A3P candidate for President of the United States

The following is an English translation of an article published in the French magazine RIVAROL (published by  Jérôme Bourbon) on the A3P and it’s presidential candidates.

In the hustle and bustle of the various right wing currents inAmericait is fascinating to observe the recent birth of the American Third Position Party (A3P), a new political party dedicated to the preservation of European cultural, racial and ethnic heritage. The A3P has recently launched a political and cultural program that could make lots of waves at the upcoming presidential elections in America. The silent majority of American citizens is fed up; it is tired of the two-party system of East Coast ‘banksters’ and West Coast culture destroyers, both ruining the country with their destructive ideology of multiculturalism and causing dangerous mutual racial mistrust amidst the American body politic. Everybody wants something new.

The A3P offers a patriotic alternative to the two parties which, similar to subprime shams, have also mortgaged the future of America. Over the last forty years, American politics has been shaped by the plutocratic system and by the two identical political machines, under the guise of the Republican Party and the Democrat party respectively. It is always the Same and its Double poorly mimicked — if we were to   borrow some words from the French philosopher of postmodernity, Jean Baudrillard. Both parties seem to be united in the ruthless dogma of the “third excluded”, as well as in the defamation of those who reject the media swamp of “political correctness.” Read more »


Observations - The Occidental Observer Blog
Romney and Gingrich compete over who is more pro-immigration

If there is any doubt about how destructive the Republican Party is toward White America, tonight’s Florida debate should settle the issue.  The two front runners, Gingrich and Romney, had a heated exchange about immigration prompted when Wolf Blitzer, CNN’s resident AIPAC activist, asked Gingrich if Romney was the most anti-immigrant of the remaining candidates.  Gingrich eagerly agreed,  based on his (Gingrich’s) pro-amnesty stance and Romney’s opposition to illegal immigration. In the video below, Romney says that the charge that he is anti-immigrant is “repulsive,” and points out that his father was born in Mexico. He then expresses his support for expanded legal immigration. Romney loves immigrants as long as they’re legal. Must have more, because, after all, diversity is our greatest strength. (Here’s a  VDARE.com article from yesterday on Black attacks on Whites in the Whitopia of Portland, OR; note the response of clueless Whites.) Despite the fact that immigrants of all stripes will vote Democrat and, along with the rest of the non-White coalition, make the Republicans irrelevant in the very near future. Après moi le déluge. Let’s hope it’s an A3P deluge.

So the two Republicans supposedly trying to appeal to the angry White base of the Party by showing how conservative they are (just what are they conserving?) end up competing over who is more pro-immigration—not to mention their equally insane competition on who is more pro-Israel. (Newt is Sheldon Adelson’s boy, but Romney has actually gotten far more money from Jews than Gingrich; both have surrounded themselves with neocon foreign policy hawks eager to attack Iran).

Pathethic.  If nothing else, it shows the attitudes of those who really have the power in America today.

It’s really a competition over who is more sociopathic: The corpulent, corrupt, infinitely sleazy Gingrich, and the smooth, wealthy stuffed shirt darling of the Eastern Republican establishment. The winner to go up against the poster child of diversity and darling of the New York/Hollywood culture machine. American democracy, 2012 version.

 

Atlanta Jewish paper says Israel should consider assassinating Obama

Andrew Adler, the owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, wrote an editorial saying Israel should consider assassinating Barack Obama. He wasn’t necessarily saying that they should assassinate Obama. Only that it should be one option on the table.

Here’s how Adler laid out “option three” in his list of scenarios facing Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu (the column, which was forwarded to us by a tipster, isn’t online, but you can read a copy here):

Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.

Yes, you read “three” correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?

Another way of putting “three” in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives…Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?

You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.

Notice how confident he is that our “strategic ally” has already discussed assassinating Obama. And, no, he hasn’t been arrested, in case you’re wondering. But the FBI is investigating. Read more »