FREEREPUBLIC.com'S PRAGMATISM: A Recipe for Disappointment [The outsider view of FR?]

etherzone ^ | November 26, 2002 | Paul Fallavollita

[Blood of Patriots and Tyrants]

Chronicles magazine's December 2002 issue features a piece by Sean Scallon in its Cultural Revolutions section discussing the evolution of Free Republic, billed as "the largest conservative-oriented website in the world." Scallon heralds the closure of cyberspace as a frontier of freedom, citing as his evidence the degeneration of Free Republic into a discussion forum beset by heavy-handed moderators who compulsively censor out any posted material deemed detrimental to the GOP Establishment's reign in conservative circles. Scallon notes that as Free Republic grew in popularity, size, and cost, "it was only natural for...site administrators to want to look good for prospective donors." The question naturally arises: why would conservatives regularly donate to a website with a Stalinesque reputation for sanitizing their members' commentary?...

Many readers of Scallon's piece will be surprised to learn that the operation of the Free Republic website requires an estimated $240,000 in donations annually from readers. The Freepers donate that kind of money because they really are convinced and excited (read: deluded) that they are "piece of the action." They really believe that their online (and off-line) advocacy and organizing efforts are effecting political change. They like the idea that they are "part of the system" and on the side of a winning majority now that the GOP has re-taken the Senate and Bush sits in the Oval Office. To swipe a phrase from Jesse Jackson, it "keeps hope alive." And hope is the archetypal political opiate, rendering populations docile and leaving them unwilling to decisively act to change their circumstances. The Freepers feel as though they're connected and influential, but they don't seem to realize that this is largely an illusion. The GOP's hierarchy already has its marching orders, independent of the input of the GOP grassroots. The GOP's top brass merely pretends that it cares about the "regular folk" at Free Republic. The GOP is always glad to take their money and their votes, though, and is equally happy to use Free Republic as a distribution node for official party "talking points."

Some alert Freepers, however, sense that the GOP they work so hard to support is not very responsive to the conservative agenda. Many Freepers are concerned about the immigration problem in this country, for example, yet the consensus of the average posters is that they have to "wait" and not push the GOP so hard on this issue because they feel constrained by what they call "practical politics." They worry that they will be cast as "too extreme" on certain issues, so they are content to water down their positions so that they can maintain a veneer of relevance and influence—influence that they never had to begin with in the places that matter.

Free Republic's existence is a symbol of the continuing captivity and betrayal of the conservative base of the GOP. The widespread appeasement and accommodation of the GOP's hierarchy by these "conservatives" guarantees there never will be any decisive pro-conservative change within the party, since the party is permanently assured that its conservative base, ever fearful of the bogeyman of a Gore-style presidency, will never abandon it. In a sense, the "mainstream" conservatives are as captive an electorate as the Blacks in the Democratic Party. Just as the Blacks are under-served and taken for granted by the Democrats, so too are the conservatives jilted by the Republicans. True conservatives are kept in the basement, and are not allowed to speak at GOP national conventions anymore. Yet, these sycophantic conservatives shuffle around the plantation of "Massa GOP" hoping a bone will occasionally be thrown their way, looking as broken and pathetic as Pavlov's famed dogs. Cries of "tax cuts" take the place of the ringing of bells for these piddling dogs. The Freepers believe they live in an era of conservative victory, but fail to grasp that the price of that victory was the gradual transmutation of conservatism itself into a variant of the same liberalism that movement had long been fighting. The day enough Freeper types realize this terrible situation, and stage a revolt against their masters, is the day conservatism has a chance again in America.

This tactic of "mainstream conservatism" supposedly "overcoming" its liberal enemy by adopting the ideological attributes of liberalism is not confined merely to internal matters of political strategy. The same attitude, essentially defeatist, emerges in the context of more important issues, including the future demographic composition of the nation itself. For example, one Freeper exclaimed that he had no problem with fifty percent of the population of the United States becoming Latino, if only the Latinos immigrated legally to the United States. In essence, that particular Freeper believes America should handle the current "immivasion" from Mexico by turning the United States into Mexico.

Sadly, that poster is not alone in his willingness to allow the GOP to import a new electorate for itself and new cheap laborers for its corporate constituency—hitting two Mexicans with one taco, so to speak. On the other hand, Free Republic's rabidly pro-Zionist administrators would not take kindly to a poster suggesting that they had no problem with Palestinians becoming fifty percent of the Israeli population (with citizen-status). Indeed, judging from one member's post, Freepers who plan to counter-demonstrate at future anti-war protests intend to wave Israeli flags rather than American. And I'd thought the Freepers were arguing that war against Iraq was in the name of America's interests. Such are the quirks of Free Republic, and the priorities of the "mainstream" conservatism it represents are radically askew.

Scallon is right. Free Republic is a large institution, and as with most organs of the Establishment, it is also ideologically bankrupt. In a sense, there is an element of fraud at work as well, since Free Republic's methodology and approach cannot possibly deliver what it promises: conservative political change. The frontier of freedom in cyberspace isn't yet totally closed, though—Scallon could have listed additional alternative forum websites where paleoconservatives and Constitutionalists can gather and discuss the issues, such as Ether Zone (obviously) and Original Dissent. The Freepers are oblivious to the fact that they are the tail, not the dog. Their Reaganite mantra of sunny optimism they always point toward, and always out of context, functions as an effective tool of political control.

"Published originally at http://www.EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

[Blood of Patriots and Tyrants]

When I ran across this article, there was one comment written, in response to it.

"Free Republic is not a Conservative site. It is an anti-American liberal site run by little Jews. In the U.S. there is what is called the 1st Amendment whereby one can criticize what one wants. Free Republic problem is that the Jews attempt to use the age old propaganda technique of taking that "criticizm" and whining to others that it's anti-Semitic. No one is fooled.

The best thing for those on the Internet is to avoid Free Republic and boycott the Jews. They deserve nothing better."

It's always those pesky Zionists. Retard.

[prisoner6]

No, the article is correct. We've lost focus and screwed up. Maybe we could all hang out over at DU and learn how to do it right.

< /sarcasm >

prisoner6

[patriciaruth]

All I can figure out from this article is that somebody is shitting bricks over the election.

Now I've heard Daschle and Gore's tirades against "Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the Washington Times."

Does this mean FreeRepublic and all of us dupes here are being elevated into that lofty status worthy of national airtime attacks?

[exnavy]

Bottom line in fine print " ...originally at www.etherzone.com ..."speaks volumns. Personally, I've never been censored here and I've said more than one thing that I wished I had not.

All I can say for sure is that success draws critisizm. And this gentlemans' article is full of stereotypes.

[Godebert]

Many Freepers are concerned about the immigration problem in this country, for example, yet the consensus of the average posters is that they have to "wait" and not push the GOP so hard on this issue because they feel constrained by what they call "practical politics."

Can't argue with that. Hasn't Jim Robinson stated in the past that the problem of illegal immigration is just not one of his priorities?

[Eric Esot]

When an article starts off tagging FR as the "largest conservative-oriented website in the world" I would expect nothing less than one thousand words explaining why that’s a bad thing.

[Cachelot]

And this gentlemans' article is full of stereotypes.

This gentleman is Paul Fallavollita. He goes by the name of "Paleocon Avatar" on certain forums that feature a high swastika content :).

10/18/01	5 day quick link 10/17 | 10/16 | 10/15 | 10/12 | 10/11

	Publication reports on student's beliefs By Laura Pelner Campus Editor A national weekly publication serving the interests of higher education reported on its Web site Wednesday that a Purdue graduate student may be a "Neo-Nazi." The Chronicle of Higher Education, which, according to its Web site, is read by more than 450,000 college and university administrators, reported that Paul Fallavollita, a graduate student in political science, has "written that Jews are inferior to the 'Aryan race' and that 'whites will win and recover a land and future for themselves.'" The Chronicle also said Fallavollita is a member of the National Alliance, a West Virginia-based white-supremacist group. A professor in the political science department who wishes to remain anonymous said people in the department have known about Fallavollita's writings for about a month to six weeks and said the student doesn't portray a white-supremacist attitude. "I don't think anybody suspected any of this until it was brought to our attention by somebody from the outside," the professor said. According to the professor, a number of people in the department find it hard to deal with Fallavollita. He said people don't go out of their way to greet or encourage him, but they don't avoid him either. "Nobody in the department is talking about doing anything that would abridge the student's rights," the professor said. The professor added that there's no easy answer. "It's just a matter of protecting somebody's rights." The professor said Fallavollita is not someone whose ideas differ simply because of religion, race or sexual preference, but that they advocate "pretty nasty things." The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that a faculty member at Purdue found some of Fallavollita's writings on the Internet, including the essay "Why We Will Win," which won a writing contest sponsored by the National Alliance. A separate piece, "A Report From the Academic Gulag," under Fallavollita's byline, was found on the Vanguard News Network Web site, www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com. According to the site, those who support it have "come together on the Internet to reclaim the American mind from the Jews" and advocate white power. The article posted with Fallavollita's name says, "My position on the issue is that my political beliefs are my business, and what I do on the Internet is my business as well." It says the author treats people with respect and notes a distinction between academic and personal life. "I do what I do because I feel a sense of responsibility to myself and the future, and I enjoy acting in accordance with that," said the article. "They are my beliefs and I would promote them all over again the same way, with no regrets." Joe Bennett, vice president for University relations, said Purdue doesn't have a comment because no official complaints have been filed. He said that within a university different ideas will be expressed, and some people won't agree with them. "He has First Amendment rights and rights of academic freedom," Bennett said. "Therefore, he can express any view that he chooses as long as he doesn't break the law." Fallavollita graduated in 1999 from Loyola University in New Orleans with degrees in political science and philosophy. He got a master's degree in political science from Purdue last year and is now in the doctoral program.	Related Coverage   Headlines Publication reports on student's beliefs Student remains hospitalized after accident in September Competitors work together to lessen heat in electronics Professor uses DNA clues in study of egg-eating fish Contact us CAMPUS DESK PHONE: (765) 743-1111 ext. 253 Campus editor: Laura Pelner Assistant campus editors: Kurt Esposito, Dave Stephens To send a letter to the editor, please email campus@purdueexponent.org Extra
Front Page | Campus | City | Features | Opinions | Sports | Classifieds | Special Web Sections Advertising | Links | About us | Letter Submission Form To report any errors with the site or to give ideas on how we can improve the online edition of Purdue Exponent contact Online Production

Purdue Exponent 2001

[Caipirabob]

Thanks for the extra (needed) info. That lends *ah-hem* the proper perspective with which to read this article.

[arielb]

gotta love the little al qaeda-firsters

[hellinahandcart]

It would not have turned up under a search, since a different title is being used, but this article has been posted before

"Outsider view of FR" is correct. I don't know about Fallavollita, but I do know that two other Etherzone writers are banned former freepers.

[CWRWinger]

The GOP's top brass merely pretends that it cares about the "regular folk" at Free Republic. The GOP is always glad to take their money and their votes, though, and is equally happy to use Free Republic as a distribution node for official party "talking points."

Very true.

[exnavy]

Whoa it looks like Paul Friedbrain is more insignificant than I thought. Thanks for the info!

[blam]

Viva Free Republic!

[The Duke]

The only thing wrong with Free Republic is that it's a
a place where those who struggle for conservatism come
together, and since the (supposed) departure of Bill
Clinton the struggle has become uncomfortably vague.

[hosepipe]

Brings to mind a few quotes:
"The tree of liberty must be watered, from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.......Mark Twain

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels. Lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, may posterity forget ye-Samuel Adams

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International - http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a393437456811.htm

[Illbay]

Anyone spending any amount of time on FR, who concludes that it is "sanitized," needs an adjustment in his medication.

[Illbay]

So that means you are not permitted to post anti-immigration diatribes on FR?

Which version of FR are you using, again?

[DoughtyOne]

Some alert Freepers, however, sense that the GOP they work so hard to support is not very responsive to the conservative agenda. Many Freepers are concerned about the immigration problem in this country, for example, yet the consensus of the average posters is that they have to "wait" and not push the GOP so hard on this issue because they feel constrained by what they call "practical politics." They worry that they will be cast as "too extreme" on certain issues, so they are content to water down their positions so that they can maintain a veneer of relevance and influence—influence that they never had to begin with in the places that matter.

Free Republic's existence is a symbol of the continuing captivity and betrayal of the conservative base of the GOP. The widespread appeasement and
accommodation of the GOP's hierarchy by these "conservatives" guarantees there never will be any decisive pro-conservative change within the party, since the party is permanently assured that its conservative base, ever fearful of the bogeyman of a Gore-style presidency, will never abandon it. In a sense, the "mainstream" conservatives are as captive an electorate as the Blacks in the Democratic Party. Just as the Blacks are under-served and taken for granted by the Democrats, so too are the conservatives jilted by the Republicans.

It would be easy to dismiss all of what this writer has to say, based on several glaring problems with his comments.

Number one, Free Republic is not a "defense of everything Jewish or Iraeli" web site.  If Israel does something wrong, it can be and is discussed on this forum.  When it reaches a point that Israel is blamed for the homicide attacks on it's people, yep the lunatic fringe are going to be chased off the site.  The Jew-Baiting aspects of the article are reason enough to dismiss it.  I'll grant you that.

Then there's the premise that the Republican party desminates it's party line through Free Republic.  To a certain extent it might, but that is not the management's fault.  Individual posters place their comments on the forum.  The forum management doesn't place Republican press releases there.  To the extent that other points of view are tolerated on the site, there are some pros and cons with regard to that.  I would say that the internet provides almost limitless voices and views to be heard.  If Free Republic doesn't wish to allow certain views to have voice on it's site, there are plenty of other sites around.

I have other problems with this article.  I'm not going to waste my time discussing them further.  I do believe the two excerpts I copied at the top of my comments are important.  Even an idiot like this writer can stumble across truth from time to time.  I am not going to state that he has hit the nail on the head in these two excerpts, but I believe he is close enough to the truth that reasoned people should at least contemplate what he has had to say in them.  I believe he has touched on some issues that we need to constantly re-evaluate for ourselves with regard to the Republican party.

Other than that, most of this writer's comments are soiled.

[TopQuark]

Oh, there are plenty on FR that share this view.

[Illbay]

Number one, Free Republic is not a "defense of everything Jewish or Iraeli" web site. If Israel does something wrong, it can be and is discussed on this forum.

Agreed. Although there are plenty of Israel apologists here, who don't question anything Israel does, and seem to place Israel's interests above all else including those of the U.S., there are also a lot of people who give them grief over it.

I suspect that this guy isn't happy that the truly virulent anti-Semitic rhetoric is "sadly lacking" on FR.