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."

[Petronski]

Thank you for your exposé in #7. Everyone should understand where the writer's coming from, and you have done us a service by citing his background. I hope this thread will last so more light can be shed on this creep's ulterior motives.

[alrea]

I don't agree with everything McCain stands for, but anyone who believes that America should be about American citizens and not about American corporations should do whatever it takes to reduce the influence of money in Washington.

Typical bullshoot envy talk; sounds like Bill Clinton is posting again...obviously forgetting that the American Citizen "is" the American Corporation. Have you heard the average size of donations to George Bush?

Clinton gave us Monica, Bin laden and massive corporate accounting crimes, but HE wanted to bring democracy back to it's routes(roots). A political Party and a corporation is an organization of citizens that enable citizens to compete with governments and journalists.

McCain is a mouthpiece for those that want bigger government and those journalists who want citizens to depend on them for information(especially around election time).

[Mo1]

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

LOL ... thanks for the summary ..

[snippy_about_it]

..pantsuits...

You mean she has more than one pair? LOL.

[dsteve3]

There is something really scarey about all of this.

I'm not a student, I don't have the sources, but didn't someone warn a long time ago about political parties in the American political system? Whigs and Tories fit in the British parlement, but it doesn't seem to work for America.

This just seems like an extension of the same thing. I couldn't understand where the author was coming from, until I found your post. And that's when I fell into the trap...

"ah, he's a Neo-Nazi - that explains his rightist slant while berating Israel..."

We are all so hooked on the labels, we don't know what content is anymore. Tell me, really, lets pretend that I've lived in a box in the South Pacific for the last three hunderd years, explain to me in detail what "right" "left" "liberal" "conservative" means? And give clear examples which demonstrate how I will know that these are not just some vague notions. I honestly have no idea. Imagine me sitting in front of you, my eyes are gleeming with curiosity - what is all of this? What really is the 'right agenda'? Is it a foot-wear issue?

I'm afraid that I genuinely don't understand the rhetoric. You will have to explain it all, without reference to these presumptive catch-phrases, in a clear and concise manner. If you can really do that, then you are probably the next messiah.

This article only entreaches my position that people and politcs are no longer interested in issues, only partesanship.

Of course, if I am jumped in the night, by people who beat me while screaming names at me, that would be an experience that could be measured. That experience, having people who don't know me personnally, but who decide they hate me because they think I belong to a group, would be concrete and definite.

I don't wish to sound alarmist, but I fear that no 'charter' can save you from the presumptions of mass appeal. If we entrench these labels to the extent that we no longer view ourselves as individuals with inalien rights, then we won't have those rights, and the fears of the mob, driven by propaganda will prevail.

That would be really scarey.

[Dakotabound]

Well, now there are two replies. Anti-semite author or not, I can't stand to see the accomplishments of the fine folks here at FR being absolutely ignored.

----------------------------------

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.

Case in point: Second Amendment Sisters made the point that firearms owners have pretty faces and painted fingernails too, just like the MMM/Brady Bunch. CSPAN coverage of their counter rally, national press, participated in GMA "Town Meeting" at White House, appeared on national news in counterpoint to the likes of Hillary Clinton and Rosie O'Donnell, subject of documentaries last year and coming up next Mother's Day. Even lauded before and after at...Etherzone (John Bender was MC of DC rally)! Fighting for Freedom Without SAS, there would have been no effective counterpoint to "ew, I'm a girl, I hate mean old guns." Started on FreeRepublic.com

Case in point: SoreLoserman sign was created by a Freeper and perpetuated through FreeRepublic. Became the rallying cry of the 2000 election debacle. Freepers played key roles in protests around Florida, effectively shouting down Jesse "Keep Hope Alive" Jackson and leaving him shaken. Referenced here by another Etherzone regular contributor, Justin Raimondo Under the Radar. SoreLoserman sign is now in SMITHSONIAN. Started on FreeRepublic.com

Case in point: Freepers shouted AlGore out of the VP mansion: "Get out of Cheney's House!" Scared AlGore into thinking the RNC had imported busloads of operatives, nazis and various and assorted mean old european white guys to terrorize his family. Nope. Just Freepers. Making a difference in their own community, and around the world. Jeepers Freepers (Washington Times article has been moved to archives). Started and organized on FreeRepublic.com, by Freepers.

So...what was that about "tail" and "dog"? FreeRepublic may make mistakes, and not everyone is happy about the current way it is moderated. But it isn't about a "site" or a "group" or even about Etherzone, Friends of Liberty, or any particular article author. It is about getting up off your butt and doing something about things you don't like, instead of whining about how bad they are.

We can all hope that folks who read this article are made of the same cloth as others who have sacrificed and made a difference, no matter how small...or how big.

[Cachelot]

I'm afraid that I genuinely don't understand the rhetoric. You will have to explain it all, without reference to these presumptive catch-phrases, in a clear and concise manner.

Ah. Registered today. Hmmm...

Anyway, the article by Ms. Pelner is remarkably clear. If you don't understand it, I'm afraid I really can't help you much ;).

I don't wish to sound alarmist

Tell me, do you want me to dip out into a couple of other boards and fetch a few posts from our friend the neo? Want me to give you his known associates as well as his nick that was banned from FreeRepublic? Would that alarm you?

Someone you know, perhaps??

[Libertina]

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
I rememberm that thread. I disagreed stongly with the poster. So did others, and different ideas were presented and BACKED UP with rational thought. It's called DISCUSSION! And I know first hand we do make a difference. What I learned from this article is that people are paying attention to us.

[patriciaruth]

Jim posted a notice recently that he was going to delete articles from DU, etc. as we had had enough left wing wacko junk being posted over here and needed a break for a while.

That may explain part of what went on.

[Cachelot]

I thought that was stupid, until I was banned shortly after posting this

You were banned for posting this? And still, you post? Clarify please - this is highly confusing :).

Oh, and who were you before?

[patriciaruth]

We all know very well that John McCain would have trounced Gore handily

Beg to differ. But I am privy to some of the insider information on McCain and his wife that the Dems would have used to soil him and turn off our church going base.

Remember how excited a lot of FReepers were when Simon "won" the primary in California. Well, Davis used a lot of half-truths to smear him and sunk his ship, and Gore and his cohorts are just as nasty as Davis and would have had better material to work with if McCain had been our candidate.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

I don't know what was in that post you replied to but there was a unwritten rule about not posting from DU for almost a year. Reasons were that DU isn't a legitimate news source and they were trying to herald themselves as the the anti FR and want our help with web hits from people directed there by us. These are just a couple off the top of my head. With the Wellstone accusations and the elections, Jim Rob gave us some latitude on posting from there but it got to be a bit much. Some people went overboard.

[patriciaruth]

I was responding to "comment 69 removed by moderator." As it was addressed to me, it showed up in my "Posts to You, your comments."

Thanks for the additional information.

[Johnny Shear]

I don't think he said anything about "etc". I think he's only against posts from DUhhh.

[Amelia]

You were banned for posting this? And still, you post? Clarify please - this is highly confusing :).

That's the part I'm still trying to figure out!