|
|
Obama for president?About a year ago I read Barack Obama’s book Dreams from my Father. To keep it short his Kenyan father while at a university in Hawaii met his to be Irish mother. The first part of the book is about that relationship or lack of one, and how his father left to go back to Kenya and his mother traveled in search of helping the world’s needy, though he spent very little time talking about his mother. He was raised almost entirely by his White grandparents, except for a short spell in Indonesia where he lived with his mother and her new Indonesian husband. When he became a teenager he discovered his blackness, and with the help of other black friends he became the angry black man, rebellious, blaming whitey for his problems, and offended that he was not part of the Black culture. I have little doubt that if he becomes President, we will see initiatives to return to making equal outcomes for Blacks one of his primary agendas. His bringing the country together will fail miserably, in my opinion. The major damage he can do is to appoint judges who are in favor of entitlements for minorities, though the party regulars may be able to keep the more radical or unqualified from be appointed. Obama’s Kenyan ancestors, the Luos tribe, are now engaged in civil war with several other Kenyan tribes over a dishonest election, and the machetes have been taken out for street warfare. So what makes up Obama? He comes from a part of Africa where there is a mixture of Blacks, Semites, and Southeast Asians. So Obama is more Irish than he is Black. However, on the Kenyan side all three racial types are tribal and not individualist. In Kenya it seems, there is little diversity, multiculturalism, or tolerance between the 40 or so tribes. They do not intermarry, are highly racist towards other tribes, and the elite group consists of Asian Indians who are the prosperous minority in the country. So what would make us think he could bring us together? If he gets the nomination, it may be an opportunity for American Whites to get a feel of how Blacks really feel about us, and the one-sidedness of their blame-game. It will be a good opportunity to make race a salient feature in politics that can open up some honest discussions, especially since Obama was brought up in a White culture, has no history of oppression or slavery, and is a Black man in name only. Posted by Matt Nuenke on Monday, February 4, 2008 at 08:20 PM in Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity Comments:2
Posted by Al Ross on February 05, 2008, 02:17 AM | # Obama’s meaningless rhetoric is only heeded because he is Black. If he were a White politico mouthing the same platitudinous pap he would be sensibly ignored. 3
Posted by Jean West on February 05, 2008, 07:49 AM | # Hillary is too huge for any mere fellow White to be able to compete with her, especially but not necessarily since she’s running as a male-female composite, thanks to Bill. Only someone also iconic could even make it to first base. I heard an interesting NPR discussion yesterday, pointing out the largely generational split between Blacks who support Obama and those that support Clinton in New York, which generalizes. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18661099&ft=1&f=1001 I think it’s interesting that politicians Rangel and Schwarzenegger are sticking with Clinton, while both their wives are supporting Obama. JW 4
Posted by wjg on February 05, 2008, 08:42 AM | # I wonder how many of the new cohort of drones who think the Obama-Hillary love fest will usher in “change” will finally realize the shell game has taken them again? Probably very few but more than will realize Romney-McCain will really be no different. Even though all our recent presidents have been puppets Obama is the spitting image of a mongrel Charlie McCarthy. Makes it all the easier to spot his Edgar Bergen. And Hillary with that carved-in, fake smile. Forget substance since we know that’s not allowed but can’t JOG find hacks that aren’t physically repellent? That’s probably why RoCain will get elected. One last “flex” of the dwindling White Man’s muscle. America deserves whichever variety of this shit that gets served. They will doubtless think it is chocolate. 5
Posted by Prozium on February 05, 2008, 09:24 AM | # I’m pulling for John McCain. Why? Because he will inflict maximum upon the “conservative movement” in America. 6
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 05, 2008, 09:45 AM | #
Didn’t Schwarzenegger endorse McCain?
Mouthing certain kinds of substance makes you physically repellent no matter what you originally looked like. That includes the substance JOG has them mouthe. You mouthe that stuff, I don’t care what you looked like to start with, you’ll come out looking hideous.
Didn’t you just put up a log entry saying you were going to vote for Ron Paul in the primary? 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 05, 2008, 09:54 AM | #
There you go being modest again, Melba. Not every wallaby knows that. Yours do but you happen to have uncommon wallabies, known from one end of the outback to the other for intelligence, political wisdom, and keeping up with current affairs. 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 05, 2008, 10:06 AM | # Blogger Soeren Kern over at BrusselsJournal.com notes widespread European swooning over the idea of a President Obama. Or ... change that to widespread swooning by Europe’s newspaper owners over the idea of a President Obama, since that’s what it really comes down to ... (and no surprise there ... we could’ve predicted that ... there’s that “Disconnect” and all that ... “between the élites and the people” ... yes, that disconnect ... OK nothing to see here, move along people, move along ...). 9
Posted by onlooker on February 05, 2008, 10:08 AM | # “I’m pulling for John McCain. Why? Because he will inflict maximum upon the “conservative movement” in America.” That’s an exercise in futility. Everyone (other than the incurably ignorant brainwashed masses) knows John McCain is a despicable liberal; he’s NOT a conservative, he’s a maniac. But if a McCain presidency serves to expose the “conservative movement” for the sham that it is (thanks to neocon subversion), then I agree with your strategy - but only in theory. That said, I, for one, am afraid McCain is so mentally unstable, he will start unleashing nukes on the middle-east…starting with Iran…. 10
Posted by Prozium on February 05, 2008, 10:10 AM | # Scrooby, Yes, I did. Ron Paul doesn’t have a chance of winning in my state. I’m going to vote for him anyway. The Republican nominee will be either McCain or Romney with the former heavily favored. 11
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 05, 2008, 10:32 AM | #
If he’d hired some of Melba’s wallabies to advise him instead of the turkeys he’s saddled himself with, he’d be unstoppable. 12
Posted by Prozium on February 05, 2008, 10:49 AM | #
Yes, I know. I’m not a “conservative” either.
I have argued for years now that “conservatism” is our major enemy in the United States. “Conservatism” soaks up white male discontent and anger and safely channels it into a false opposition where it dissipates. The conservative movement has been stabilizing and giving legitimacy to the anti-racist status quo for over forty years now. It could not have functioned otherwise. There are some interesting parallels to the Social Democrats and Bolsheviks here. The former were extended legitimacy in Germany in order to neuter and marginalize the radical left. A labor aristocracy was created to prop up capitalism. It worked charmingly. At least for awhile. Here in America it still works. The major unions have thrown their support behind the cheap labor agenda lobby. If you think about it, John McCain is good for us. He says essentially to all the conservatives in the immigration reform movement that the GOP will no longer be an outlet for your racial anxieties. All you suckers are no longer mainstream. McCain presents himself as a warmongering militarist, a free trader, a multiculturalist who is little more than a servant of the business community. How is he not a true conservative? This has always been the real conservative agenda. They have merely been giving lip service to our concerns all these years.
Yes, the crazy old fool would completely discredit conservatism. Why stand in his way? 13
Posted by onlooker on February 05, 2008, 12:59 PM | # “If you think about it, John McCain is good for us. He says essentially to all the conservatives in the immigration reform movement that the GOP will no longer be an outlet for your racial anxieties. [...] They have merely been giving lip service to our concerns all these years.” Given the real choices we have—as crazy as this sounds—maybe an Obama presidency would work out better for us. At least the masses of whites wouldn’t be operating under the false impression that we are being governed by a so-called “white conservative Republican.” If a liberal black president gets elected, then we could clearly draw lines between the racial differences/distinctions the racial egalitarians work so hard to obscure. 1- President Hillary would be intolerable. 2- President McCain would be intolerable and outright dangerous. 3- President Obama might just serve to create the conditions that would reignite the white-racial-consciousness we are trying to spark? P.S. Under a Hillary or McCain presidency, Amnesty for illegals would surly be signed into law. However, with an Obama presidency, I think it’s probable that overwhelming opposition would arise against an amnesty bill from both Houses of Congress. I’m not saying I support Obama, I’m saying, ironically, given the choice between him, Hillary, or McCain, his presidency would do the least damage to the integrity of America’s white population. Ron Paul was my first choice, but realistically, Romney is the best candidate left in the race that has a chance of winning. I hope he can pull it off and win the White House. If Romney is loses badly tonight to McCain, we’re left with a big pile of ordure to choose from. 14
Posted by Stan on February 05, 2008, 03:20 PM | # “Given the real choices we have—as crazy as this sounds—maybe an Obama presidency would work out better for us. At least the masses of whites wouldn’t be operating under the false impression that we are being governed by a so-called “white conservative Republican.” If a liberal black president gets elected, then we could clearly draw lines between the racial differences/distinctions the racial egalitarians work so hard to obscure.” It’s a tricksey thing to support someone for election, but if we are going to be re-tribalized, the sooner black hatred & racialism are thoroughly exposed, the better. In fact, pulling together a public group (“100 White Men For Obama”) would blow minds, allow us to talk about ourselves and our relationship to government in ways that could never happen with a white candidate. The fundamental message still needs lots of preaching, namely that we are the white tribe of Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and North America. A lot of you call it WN, but we’re being forced into neo-tribalism and any assertion of white cooperativeness (as would be exposed in a political endorsement) would provide a new model for all the white peoples. I don’t go so far as to support such a proposal, but it would set up a new elite if it could develop ways of muting individual prickliness. 15
Posted by Matra on February 05, 2008, 04:15 PM | # I’m pulling for John McCain. Why? Because he will inflict maximum upon the “conservative movement” in America. The “conservative movement” hates McCain. If he goes on to be the GOP nominee conservatives will either have to swallow hard and vote for him, confining conservatism to the rubbish heap, or they will have to reconsider their relationship with the GOP. The warmongers* - neocons and 9/11 Republicans - are only interested in what is good for Israel so they are hurling an incredible amount of abuse at conservatives (“McCain Derangement Syndrome”) who actually care about things other than the war. (McCain seems to believe war is an end in itself and so is A-OK from a neocon viewpoint). Conservatives in turn, led by Rush and Laura Ingraham, are attacking John McCain as if he were Hillary Clinton. The coalition will be put back together if Romney wins, as he is also pro-war, so McCain is better from a MR point of view because he may not be able to bridge the gap with conservatives thus breaking up the GOP coalition. * Examples of the Israel Firster American Thinker headlines of recent days all about the need to support McCain no matter what: Time for Republicans to Get a Grip A life-or-death reason to vote for any Republican The Base is Wrong About the Gang of 14 Who’s Afraid of John McCain? 16
Posted by Prozium on February 05, 2008, 05:46 PM | # “Conservatism” is going the way of the dodo regardless of what happens today. Half the children in America are non-white. It’s only a matter of time before they come of age and bury the “conservative coalition.” The question is no longer radicalism or moderation. It’s radicalism now or radicalism tomorrow. Events are about to accelerate in the United States for a number of reasons. The big story today is the stock market, not the primaries. America’s “consumer economy” is out of gas. I have been following the financial blogs closely for the past several weeks. Aside from the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, there are a whole series of other shoes waiting to drop which have been held in check until now by faith in Jew Bernanke’s ability to forestall the inevitable. 17
Posted by onlooker on February 05, 2008, 06:15 PM | # Prozium, Have you ever considered running for Political Office? You surly have the intelligence and a clear, in-depth, grasp of the issues—not to mention the right temperament! You’d make a very good leader/spokesman for our cause. I’m a pretty good judge of character and you certainly pass the test. 18
Posted by torgrim on February 05, 2008, 10:43 PM | # Prozium; “Half the children in America are non-white” In California, it is something like 75% nine years and younger. “There are a whole series of other shoes waiting to drop”- This economy is tracking pretty close to ‘79—‘80 election cycle, that it is almost deja-vu. When Carter left office he retired Fed Chairman Burns and replaced him with Volker. 19
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 06, 2008, 11:24 PM | # Not one said he’d vote for Ron Paul, or for Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo as a write-in candidate. Not one. The least left-wing they managed was John McCain — someone who could get the nomination of the British Labour Party. After that piece of news, is it any wonder Holland is locked in a national death-spiral? (File that under “How Out Of Touch European Parliamentarians Are, Even Supposed Right-Wingers”) 20
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 07, 2008, 01:05 AM | # Joe Guzzardi predicts McInsane will never be president. (It’s a heartening column, by the way, well worth the read. Guzzardi, an astute political thinker and gifted columnist, has long been one of Vdare.com’s most valuable assets.) 21
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 07, 2008, 10:50 AM | # “Liberal” U.S. whites who are more familiar with Negroes vote for Hillary. “Liberal” U.S. whites who don’t know Negroes well (because not exposed to them much) vote for Obama because they imagine he’s the “hip black friend they’d always pictured having” (a mind-picture with a twofold purpose: blunting their personal anxieties related to racial strife, and permitting them to feel morally superior to the “racists” who are “so evil they’re incapable of having black friends”). This is closely related to the “Barack The Magic Negro” phenomenon cited by Rush Limbaugh: frightened whites are grasping at any Negro image resembling moderation and civilized behavior in some kind of hope of making the race problem “all right” — taking it away as a problem, getting rid of it, in other words. Whites voting for Obama think he’ll take the race problem away just like in the fairy tales. In their minds he’s sort of a Negro fairy godmother from the fairy tales, come to take the race problem away. (So much for democracy and one man one vote ... not to mention one woman one vote .......) And, not completely unrelated to the above, here‘s a sort of snapshot of today’s typical metrosexual position in regard to the general race-immigration crisis. (Hint: they have no position. They’re blissfully unaware.) (So much for democracy and one metrosexual one vote ..........) 22
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 07, 2008, 11:21 AM | # Rush Limbaugh explaining the origin of the “Barack The Magic Negro” image:
23
Posted by GT on February 07, 2008, 01:18 PM | # From Scrooby’s link: Here was this obviously well-educated white man, likely liberal-leaning, with concerns about food ingredients {corn-based vs. wheat-based –gt} that would baffle any resident of the Third World … His little food concern evaporates in the world of non-English-speaking people. Does he–or those like him–make the connection? The same could be said for the little concerns of the non-movement’s bourgeois. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, I’m the fool. I don’t trust Guzzardi’s judgment. Billbama or McInsane, a second amnesty is on its way. Or a series of ‘little’ amnesties beginning, perhaps, with citizenship for national service (civil or military). The latter almost certainly be supported by the dead Republic’s Israel-loving patriotards. A scary thought – for me, at least – is eight years hence Whites may be no closer to coalescing around the idea of local action, rural independence, and secession than they are today. Amnesty or no, it’s possible the non-movement’s bourgeois may still be searching for a national electoral solution involving little to no risk to themselves or dreaming about a “revolution” fought by a suddenly awakened but utterly dependent White urban underclass. Damn, I hope that’s not the case. We have only 25 years, at best. 24
Posted by Prozium on February 07, 2008, 02:27 PM | # Flip dropped out this afternoon. McCain will sink the Republican ticket in November and pull the conservatives in Congress down with him. I knew that conservatism would implode sooner or later, but I didn’t expect it to happen so soon. 25
Posted by onlooker on February 07, 2008, 02:59 PM | # Now that Romney’s out and McCain is the presumptive nominee, we are faced with the unprecedented consequence of choosing between the EQUAL of two evils. Not the lesser of two evils…as was our usual dilemma. 26
Posted by Jean West on February 07, 2008, 03:55 PM | # For the whole time that I’ve been on the Internet, there’ve always been people who talked of “helping the collapse,” which seems to be synonymous with “waiting for the collapse.” I’ve never agreed with them; even 10 years ago, I thought there must be *something* that those of us who saw the enemy and saw what they were doing against our interests could begin working on, openly, grassroots style. Recently, reading the subject lines and a few messages to get the gist of a lengthy thread on a high type list, ‘Nero fiddles while Rome burns’ drifted through my thoughts. And now, facing the prospect of Hillary or McCain at the helm, either of whom can do a lot of damage in a very short time, I wonder if this is it, the collapse we’ve been waiting for. Watching a small portion of the Romney news break, I had the feeling he was being paid or bribed to move out now instead of later. Meanwhile, reading the Ron Paul forums, I wonder how much more people like us should have been doing all these years to educate all those searching people who are so, so in the dark. 27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 07, 2008, 04:23 PM | #
Ron Paul’s ineptness is a disgrace. His failures are in no way our fault. He took people’s money and turned around and did nothing with it! Nothing! What did he take people’s money for??? What’s he in this for, an ego-trip??? There’s no way he’s in this to actually win. The most elementary campaign moves aimed at capitalizing on his huge potential advantage as, by far and away, the best of the field on immigration, the war everyone is aghast at, tax policy, lots of accumulated social policy since the ‘60s which whites are heartily sick and tired of, such as affirmative action and so on — he repeatedly fails to take advantage of his potential on these and other central issues! Peter Brimelow has written he thinks Paul running as a Third-Party candidate isn’t out of the question. All I can say is, I’d advise people not to contribute another penny to his so-called “campaign” until he shows he has the faintest inkling what his potential advantages are and how to take capitalize on them. His campaign must be being run by absolute rank amateurs, either that or by seasoned people who haven’t a clue as to the winning issues and how to stress that their guy stands on the right side of all of them. Whatever Libertarians touch, politics-wise, turns into a loser. Why? Because their most dedicated people are passionate about one cause and one only: legalization of marijuana, and that’s all they’ll really fight for, when you get right down to it. And they’ll lose every goddamn election campaign they’re in charge of. Ron Paul needs to STFU about “the gold standard” and start talking about FORCED RACE REPLACEMENT (plus one or two other things). No don’t use that term “race-replacement.” Come up with whatever term you want as a euphemism everyone will understand. JUST START TALKING ABOUT IT. And follow the advice Alabama Governor George Wallace gave Jesse Jackson when the latter was first starting out in politics: in regard to the message you’re trying, as a candidate, to get across, always keep it simple! Wallace’s exact words to Jackson were, “Keep it down where the goats can get it!” Keep it simple, down where the goats can get it, and keep hammering away at it. You’re not talking to an audience of PhDs. 28
Posted by Prozium on February 07, 2008, 04:47 PM | # McCain is speaking on MSNBC right now before CPAC. The graphic at the bottom of the screen reads, “Sen. John McCain: I’m proud to be a conservative.” I admit to feeling a rush a Schadenfreude. Good luck, Bill Bennett. Have fun trying to put the lipstick on this pig! 29
Posted by onlooker on February 07, 2008, 05:05 PM | # Prozium points out: “Sen. John McCain: I’m proud to be a conservative.” ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master - that’s all.’ 30
Posted by Matra on February 07, 2008, 07:02 PM | # I admit to feeling a rush a Schadenfreude. Good luck, Bill Bennett. Have fun trying to put the lipstick on this pig! He will put lipstick on it (he’s on board with McCain on immigration that’s for sure). Indeed don’t be surprised if conservatives are played for suckers (again). By election time this dispute may be history as they all rally ‘round the war hero and get ready to kick some Iranian ass. I hope I’m wrong. US-based observers know more than I do but already I’m hearing a softening of the anti-McCain tone and reminders that the country is at war. The tone of the neocons hasn’t changed though. The Podhoretz/Kristol crowd are so confident they are openly gloating and are increasingly contemptuous of their useful idiots (conservatives). Fred, Ron Paul appears to be ashamed of his anti-immigration credentials. He certainly doesn’t like talking about the subject. When he talks about the Fed and the gold standard I wonder what percentage of Americans know what he is even talking about? Maybe the real goal of his campaign is to begin the process of educating the public about monetary policy. 31
Posted by onlooker on February 07, 2008, 07:13 PM | # “When he talks about the Fed and the gold standard I wonder what percentage of Americans know what he is even talking about?” Answer: One percent at best! 32
Posted by Prozium on February 07, 2008, 07:36 PM | # It will be 2006 on a much larger scale. The most stalwart of the GOP cheerleaders will rally around McCain and circulate his talking points. I don’t see how he wins in November. They had Limbaugh, Ingraham, Hannity and most of the other talk radio loudmouths on board two years ago and got wiped out. Mr. Amnesty himself will now be at the top of the GOP ticket. The Democrats and Independents who put him over the top in the Republican primaries will swing behind Hillary or Obama in the general election. What’s he going to do? Run on a platform of amnesty, war, and free trade? I would be stunned if he wins, but I won’t rule out the possibility. McCain did make a comeback after the implosion of Rudy 9/11. He really didn’t win though. The other candidates lost and he now finds himself the last man standing. Will Hillary or Obama stumble and clear the way for him? 33
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 07, 2008, 07:37 PM | # Less than one-tenth of one percent. There’s something seriously wrong with the guy if he can’t figure out what his advantages are in this time of unprecedented national crisis and play to them when before crowds. Ditto whoever he’s got handling him. 34
Posted by torgrim on February 07, 2008, 08:04 PM | # Prozium; “the other talk radio loudmouths”... Speaking of such, Savage of the Savage Nation, has just floated one, that he may start a new Party after the election….surprise…..a Nationalist Party! 35
Posted by US based observer on February 07, 2008, 08:19 PM | # Matra is correct. American conservatives lack the intelligence and foresight to understand why a McCain victory would be, in the long run, much worse than Obama/Clinton. In addition, they lack the discipline to force any Republican candidate to actually earn their votes. Just as an “easy” woman is disrespected when she “gives it away for nothing,” so are conservatives similarly held in contempt when they vote for anyone on a GOP ticket, regardless of ideology and principle. McCain, in theory, has a problem, and he knows it. He cannot appeal to both the hardcore conservatives as well as the moderates/independents, and he’ll need support from both in order to win. The solution of course is the time honored tradition of telling the conservatives that they “don’t have anywhere else to go” and that “we must come together to defeat the Democrats.” Thus, apart from some cheap rhetoric, McCain and company will target the moderates and take conservatives for granted - once the conservatives are baited like a bull with the prospect of a “liberal Democratic administration.” 36
Posted by silver on February 07, 2008, 08:29 PM | # Paul isn’t a racialist, Scrooby; he’s a libertarian. And so are most of his handlers. That’s what the “problem” is. These are people who sincerely believe “government” is the source of every ill in society; for them, everything reduces to government “interference”. They think they are “realists” but they are actually blind fanatics. It is their blindness which prevents them from understanding the nature of the groundswell of support they have garnered. 37
Posted by Prozium on February 07, 2008, 09:07 PM | # I pointed that out at Taki’s Top Drawer earlier. Ron Paul won 3% of the vote in the Alabama Republican Primary (he wouldn’t have gotten that if the internet based racialists I know hadn’t voted for him). In 2004, an amendment to strike segregationist language out of the Alabama state constitution was defeated in the general election. Libertarianism is an ideology without a constituency. Ron Paul has millions of dollars. Imagine how different his numbers would have been if Paul had openly ran as a white man in the South. David Duke actually won a primary. Paul hasn’t even done that as a libertarian conservative. 38
Posted by Matra on February 07, 2008, 09:32 PM | # What’s he going to do? Run on a platform of amnesty, war, and free trade? He’ll put it differently: Secure the border first…, win the war on terror, grow the economy. I can see conservatives falling for that plus voting to keep Hillary out. If there’s a major terrorist attack in the US or even Europe or Canada then McCain wins. 39
Posted by Prozium on February 07, 2008, 09:44 PM | #
= Bush 2006. I saw a thread on Free Republic last night where Jim Robinson claimed he would donate money to the DNC. 40
Posted by D.E. Johnson on February 07, 2008, 10:18 PM | # Posted by silver on Friday, February 8, 2008 at 12:29 AM | # Ag: Paul isn’t a racialist, Scrooby; he’s a libertarian. And so are most of his handlers. That’s what the “problem” is. Who are most of his handlers? What is the problem whereof you blather? Ag: These are people who sincerely believe “government” is the source of every ill in society; for them, everything reduces to government “interference”. They think they are “realists” but they are actually blind fanatics. It is their blindness which prevents them from understanding the nature of the groundswell of support they have garnered. Spoken like a true slave who cannot conceive of existing independent of governmental regulation. Spoken like a blind fanatic, as a matter of fact. Admit it: You’re a McCain guy. He has had the support of the Log Cabin Republicans for many years. D.E. Johnson 41
Posted by silver on February 07, 2008, 11:02 PM | # Johnson,
The Libertarians managing his campaign, obviously.
One sentence doesn’t constitute blather. Scrooby was dismayed at Paul’s ineptitude and I simply remarked that that is all that can be expected of a libertarian. Many racialists have it in their heads that Paul is their man; in reality, his real, perhaps only, value is as a shakep-up artist.
This is too big too address here. And the wrong forum in which to do so, besides. 42
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on February 07, 2008, 11:18 PM | # Flip dropped out this afternoon. McCain will sink the Republican ticket in November and pull the conservatives in Congress down with him. I knew that conservatism would implode sooner or later, but I didn’t expect it to happen so soon. I agree that the potential for war within the Republican party has, er…potential. 43
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on February 07, 2008, 11:29 PM | # Matra is correct. American conservatives lack the intelligence and foresight to understand why a McCain victory would be, in the long run, much worse than Obama/Clinton. In addition, they lack the discipline to force any Republican candidate to actually earn their votes. Just as an “easy” woman is disrespected when she “gives it away for nothing,” so are conservatives similarly held in contempt when they vote for anyone on a GOP ticket, regardless of ideology and principle. It’s not that McCain would be worse than Clinton - it’s that voting for the least conservative RINO available because he’s the only candidate the media will anoint. Recipe for repeat performances much? If conservatives don’t punish the Republican power structure for their perfidy, they can expect helpings of this slop every 4 years. 45
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on February 07, 2008, 11:36 PM | # Nah, libertarianism is a good thing, insofar as it dovetails (nicely, IMO) with Euro goals. Free thinkers, Constitutionalists, truthers, etc., they can all vote and donate, and many are allergic to racialism. 46
Posted by melba peachtoast on February 07, 2008, 11:37 PM | # Everything now depends on the actions of solitary individuals—“lone wallaby” direct actions. Watch and wait. You may learn something. 47
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 07, 2008, 11:53 PM | #
Hush up, don’t you know Melba’s following this thread? A woman like her knows nothing of such things! Have some respect, man! 48
Posted by silver on February 07, 2008, 11:54 PM | #
And they do. But Paul spends too much time talking about the “gold standard” and other libertarian esotericism as though it were these issues which have caused his groundswell. 49
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 07, 2008, 11:56 PM | #
“Racialism” is nothing other than normalness: it’s a word that didn’t have to be invented and doesn’t deserve to exist. An allergy to “racialism” is an allergy to normalness. 50
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 08, 2008, 12:24 AM | #
51
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 08, 2008, 12:53 AM | #
And since people aren’t ordinarily allergic to normalness, those who come across as allergic to racialism are simply allergic to the bad reputation the media and the rest of today’s establishment have succeeded on imbuing that word with (and through the word, their strawman version of that “notion”). How to deal with this? Just don’t use the word. To paraphrase Josef Stalin, “No word, no problem.” Terms the other side has invented to serve its ends, such as “racist,” “sexist,” and “The Patriarchy” serve no purpose for our side. Neither do terms some on our side have made up in reacting to the other side’s onslaughts, such as “racialist” or “conservative.” “Racialist” is a word some on our side may have mistakenly felt obligaged to make up but it is not needed; is redundant; doesn’t really mean anything. It’s like calling well people “not sick.” “See that guy over there?” “Yes, what about him?” “He’s not sick.” “Oh? And what makes you point that out?” “I don’t know, I just thought I’d give you his classification. See that other guy over there, passing by? He’s not sick. And see that woman standing over there? She’s not sick.” “But ... why is that particular classification needed? Isn’t it a bit redundant? Don’t we assume people are not sick (unless there are indications to the contrary)?” Do we need a term designating people who don’t have genital herpes? Do we feel the need to label everyone free of genital herpes with that term? Do they all get called “non-genital-herpes-manifester” or whatever the term would be? No. Being free of genital herpes is the normal way to be. It requires no special made-up word just to “please the other side” or whatever. Let them adopt special names for themselves, such as “genital herpes sufferer.” Likewise with the unnecessary “racialist,” a word that almost “self-incriminates by trying to self-exculpate.” Let the other side, these monkeys on our backs for the past several decades, make up special names for themselves. “Degenerates,” for example (which is what I call them). Or “monkeys.” Or whatever. We’re normal and need no special name, monkeys, now get back in your cages, there’s a good ape! 52
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 08, 2008, 01:15 AM | #
To prepare for carrying out “lone wallaby” direct actions, can we get those all-black wallaby ninja suits? I’ve seen wallabies in action wearing those and they’re even cooler than that long black coat Keanu Reeves wore in The Matrix! I’d give my right arm for one! (And that’s not even mentioning the wombat version!) 53
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 08, 2008, 01:44 AM | # An e-mail a reader sent Steve Sailer:
54
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 08, 2008, 02:37 AM | # How these same Obama-loving morons view (and are brainwashing Amsterdam schoolchildren to view) those of their good Dutch countrymen who question excessive nation-changing incompatible immigration of North African Moslems into their native land. (Hat tip) 55
Posted by Desmond Jones on February 08, 2008, 03:43 AM | # Obama is winning the white voters in states where no one is scared of blacks (North Dakota!). [Scroob note: to non-Yanks reading this, that’s because no blacks live in those places: there are essentially zero Negroes in North Dakota, and in places like the Dakotas, Montana, and some others, most people will never have met a Negro or even seen one. The problem with that analysis is that Illinois (~20% black) gave Obama his largest white vote (57%). If the CNN exit polls are reliable, and again using religion (Catholic/Protestant) as a marker for European ethnicity (and excepting New Mexico), old stock Americans, Germans, English, Irish Protestant, Swedes and Norwegians are voting for Obama. Catholics, even excluding Hispanics, Italians, Poles, Russians, Irish Catholics etc. are a powerful anti-Obama force. Even in the deepest South, Georgia for instance, 40% of whites gave Obama their vote. If it wasn’t for the over 60s in Georgia, Oklahoma and Missouri, (the home of Jesse James and Wild William Anderson) Obama gains much more of the white vote. Only the staunchest of white Protestant Northern European democrats, in Alabama and Tennessee, are holding the line against Obama. 71% (non-weighted average) of Alabama’s white Protestant Democratic vote went to Hillary. 69% of over 30 New Jersey whites, mostly Catholic, thus Italians etc., voted Hillary. Even in California, non-Hispanic Catholics, gave Hillary a big vote. 56
Posted by Jean West on February 08, 2008, 09:16 AM | # It has always been my opinion that the Jewish juggernaut and the non-White invasion each need to be fought with single-minded aggressiveness, and that combining the two efforts weakens both. Mr. Scrooby instructs us to withhold any contribution to Ron Paul until such time as “race replacement” becomes the focal point of his campaign. Whereas, in a recent comment here, I expressed my disappointment that I could not donate again as planned because two Jews, one named Schiff, had been appointed as Ron Paul’s “advisors.” Mr. Scrooby and I are fighting a different war. JW P.S. It was reported on the RP campaign website yesterday that Donald Luskin has stepped down as Ron Paul’s economic advisor and joined John McCain in that capacity. I’ve found no confirmation in the online mainstream media. 57
Posted by onlooker on February 08, 2008, 09:25 AM | # “He’ll put it differently: Secure the border first…,” BIG DEAL!!! So what if he secures the border. 30 plus million illegals are already in the USA! It’s obvious it’s a bit too late to be talking about securing the boarders. The discussion should be about deporting the invaders! Don’t you people understand that? 58
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 08, 2008, 09:48 AM | # Plus, he’ll NEVER secure the border. He’s lying through his teeth. Anyone who believes a word McInsane says about controlling Third-World immigration is a congenital mental retard. McCain will fight tooth-and-nail to keep all forty-five million ‘mmoids here by granting them citizenship, PLUS he’ll fight tooth-and-nail to leave the borders as wide-open as possible to maximize the entry of absolutely unlimited numbers of ever more and more of them. He’s no different from Bush in this regard. And yes, they’re both “conservatives.” “Conservatism” will be the death of Western Civilization. 59
Posted by ben tillman on February 08, 2008, 09:52 AM | # There’s something seriously wrong with the guy if he can’t figure out what his advantages are in this time of unprecedented national crisis and play to them when before crowds. Ditto whoever he’s got handling him. His handlers are mercenaries. They’re working to sabotage his campaign. 60
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 08, 2008, 10:13 AM | #
My view is no one should send Ron Paul one dime of hard-earned money only to see it disappear down a rat-hole of sheer political incompetence until Ron Paul makes, not “race-replacement the focal point of his campaign,” but intelligently uses the equivalent of opposition to forced race-replacement (namely, dealing properly, fairly, and speedily with all Third-World illegals, advocating free association in all its reasonable manifestations — manifestations we enjoyed before the ‘60s advent of Jewish hegemony [and no, don’t call it “the ‘60s advent of Jewish hegemony” even thought that’s exactly what it was: Jews arranging things to their liking not ours, which they’d been itching to do since their arrival in this country eighty years earlier but hadn’t acquired the maturity of power to do until the mid-‘60s, finally simply pushing the WASPs aside], solving the “Anchor-baby” plague by advocating the rectification of the faulty interpretation of the XIVth Amendment to the Constitution, and so on. Put all that in simple sound-bite terms the way the public likes and needs to be able to catch on and digest, “keep it down where the goats can get it” — don’t act as if you’re talking to an audience of PhDs, and keep hammering away at it, at the simple, simple, simple slogans white people wanna hear, the ones they’ve been dying for these forty years of hell.. If Ron Paul, or his Jewish handlers, or whoever is totally mismanaging his campaign, had played his cards right he’d have come in with several times the 4% he got in South Carolina for example. If he’d played his cards right he’d have ordinary white Americans standing on their chairs wildly applauding him then carrying him around the auditorium on their shoulders then all but getting their deer rifles and en masse personally escorting him into the White House, instead of the current debacle where no one outside of computer geeks and marijuana legalizers has ever heard of the guy or has no idea that “help is on the way, you only have to to vote for this guy.” Help isn’t on the way. Help never was, it turns out. Not from the Libertarian quarter, at any rate. We realize that now. All too painfully. 61
Posted by onlooker on February 08, 2008, 10:34 AM | # “Plus, he’ll NEVER secure the border. He’s lying through his teeth.” You’ve got that right Mr. Scrooby! 62
Posted by Voice on February 08, 2008, 11:10 AM | # Ron Paul didn’t run his campaign very shrewdly(wasn’t aggressive enough calling out his competitors) BUT the Ron Paul Revolution is real and it is definitely racially charged(amongst his supporters) The Constitution was written by racialists! Todays white supremacists would fit in quite nicely with the Founders and that is why liberals and Anti-White Jews hate it so much! We need to welcome all comers to the tent, including the Peter Schiffs of this world. We need to keep naming the anti-white Jews(neocons) but respect the fact that all Jews are not evil. Paul Gottfried can sit side by side with me anytime. The same goes for Jewish libertarians like the late Murray Rothbard. We have the perfect test for “good jews” with the Ron Paul movement. For example, it has made me view Jewish media personalities who back Ron Paul as worthy of a second look, and sharpened my focus on the Jews that call him a kook, nutter, racist blah blah blah. We also need to name all of the psychotic open border Catholics who want to flood us with Mexicans. We need to name the stupid fricking , bible thumping evangelical christians as the war for Israel fools that they are! Trust me, If we wake this country up to the Constitution and get back all of our freedoms ,we will be on the road to Freedom-and hopefully succession of our own land area. Ron Paul is attacking all the instruments that enslave us. Organized anti-white Jewry, Corporatists, Open Border Bible thumpers and sickening and tryranical white liberals(who I think I hate the most for there naive and simple view of the world) 63
Posted by James Bowery on February 08, 2008, 12:42 PM | # Todays white supremacists would fit in quite nicely with the Founders That’s not true. What is true is that today’s white separatists would fit in quite nicely with the Founders. Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Racial supremacy requires one race ruling over the other(s). They must be in the same government. 64
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 08, 2008, 01:42 PM | # Voice, we of the blogs need to “name” all those things you cited, of course. But Ron Paul needs to use euphemisms, not “name” them, obviously (exactly as the other side has always used euphemisms — alongside outright brazen bold-faced lies when they could get away with it — in attacking us these forty-five-odd years. Every word out of George Bush’s mouth is either a euphemism or a brazen lie. Every word. Every word out of Abe Foxman’s, or Morris Disease’s, or Hillary Clinton’s, or Ted Kennedy’s mouth is a euphemism or a filthy bold-faced lie. No politician who isn’t intelligent enough, or whose handlers aren’t intelligent enough, to fight fire with fire — to use appropriate, effective, clever, persuasive euphemisms — does not deserve one penny from contributors because that politician is going strictly nowhere and you can chalk up what money you’ve foolishly contributed as pure loss right from the get-go. Who needs that? Go pay your electric bill with it instead. Make a car payment. Buy the kids an ice-cream cone. Don’t send it to fricking loser imbeciles until they show you they’ve gotten serious. 65
Posted by Voice on February 08, 2008, 02:04 PM | # James, Aren’t our sentences exactly the same? Fred, He does name them doesn’t he? Neoconservatives? The other day I heard him interviewed with Hannity and and Hannity asked “what is a neoconservative” and Paul said those who were born and influenced by “Strauss and Norman Podhoretz”. He can’t say former Marxist Jews can he? Personally , I love the triangulation he does with MLK and Rosa Parks because it that exactly the type of thing Jews do with immigration to US and none to Israel? Once people are free, they will associate naturally amongst their own. Why do the Anti-White Jews despise Paul? Because freedom would usher in “racism” and they are absolutely right!!! I just want to start somewhere and the Ron Paul Movement is Ground Zero to get where we want to be. We have to start a movement that is broadbased and appeals to people who have masked all ethnocentric feelings before we get to the point of succession and deciding after that whether southern and northern euros are completely compatible sharing living space and naturally grouping would occur.(just a bit of a wakeup for the losers in the WN community who try and drive a wedge between N and S Euros-not directed at you) 66
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 08, 2008, 02:18 PM | # Look, here’s some good news: in my car before lunch this morning I was listening to the Glen Beck show on the radio, and he had an interview with someone whose name I didn’t quite get, something like Tara Sedmeyer (Setmeyer? Setmeier? Sedmayer? Must be something like that). I heard the segment only in bits and pieces because I had to stop and get out of the car a few times. She works for a U.S. Congressman whose name I also didn’t quite hear when Beck said it (— a Polish or German name maybe? With a W in it?). To cut to the chase, this interview is something everyone should listen to. This Tara person was GREAT! Does anyone know how to play back segments of the Glen Beck radio show? She was so good, you have to hear it rather than read the transcript, you have to hear her voice, hear her emphasis, her emotion, her shock, her indignation, as she says the stuff she says — but I’ll take the transcript if there’s no way to play the audio back. This interview was OUTSTANDING! This Tara could have been one of us here (with a few relatively unimportant exceptions, considering the overall context). I stumbled on it on my car radio around 10:45 (EST) and listened about seven or eight minutes, then my listening was interrupted until I was back in my car around 11:10, and I listened until the interview ended at around 11:20. That interview, if it can be posted as an audio on YouTube in its entirety (it must’ve lasted at least forty minutes or so, maybe 60), will be very powerful support for our side. Anyone know how to get hold of it? It’s a MUST LISTEN! I never listen to Glen Beck because I find him tentative and unfocused and he doesn’t zero in on the crux of the issues: he’s scattered, not clear. But in this interview with Tara he was superb, like I’d never heard him before. 67
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 08, 2008, 02:21 PM | # Voice, the points in your follow-up comment are well-taken. 68
Posted by onlooker on February 08, 2008, 03:46 PM | # “This Tara person was GREAT! This Tara could have been one of us here (with a few relatively unimportant exceptions, considering the overall context).” Yeah, one of us! 69
Posted by Prozium on February 08, 2008, 03:59 PM | # Ron Paul got 3% of the Republican Primary vote in Alabama. In 2004, an amendment to strip segregationist language out of the state constitution was defeated in the general election. If Ron Paul had run as a white man in the South with tens of millions of dollars, he would have cracked the media blackout and set off a political earthquake. Instead, he stuck with aracial libertarianism and has nothing to show for it aside from second place in a few small Western states. 70
Posted by name on February 08, 2008, 04:39 PM | # Considering “Voice” is most likely a jew himself, his defense of “good jews” and plea for “broadbased” unity looks a bit self-serving. The fact is that most NW European-descended Americans, including non-racialists, see themselves as distinct from S. Euros. It’s not at all clear some ascientific, utopian, leveling, “Pan-Aryan” type of WN would have more appeal to the American majority than a more narrowly targeted approach which recognizes the primacy of NW Europeans in this country’s history and the genetic/phenotypic/cultural gulf between NW and S Europeans. 71
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 08, 2008, 05:39 PM | # Onlooker, yes, one of us. Barbara Jordan, a Negro member of Congress from Texas, was one of us on open borders. So is Terry Anderson, host of a West Coast anti-open-borders radio show and a Negro. So is Ezola Foster, if memory serves (Pat Buchanan’s erstwhile running mate and a Negro). Makes no difference that Miss Setmayer’s a Negro, none whatsoever. In fact, it’s even better! Euro and Negro opponents of open borders (and Jewish and every other kind of opponent) can work out their mutual differences after they’ve joined forces to defeat open borders. This girl was absolutely wonderful in that Glen Beck interview, extremely impressive, and every word I wrote above stands. I’d love to know how one obtains the audio. 72
Posted by name on February 08, 2008, 05:43 PM | # Name, You are a man of great wisdom. You may want to have a look at what I said again. After we obtain our freedom and establish white living areas via our constitutional right of freedom of association, sub-euro groups will have the right to form intra-european conclaves if there is a strong desire to do so. You are proving my point of the unsustainability of a broadbased US racialist movement by stating that I must be a Jew if I don’t hate every Jew and am not suspicious of every southern european. BTW, I won’t reply to trolls like you again until you use a moniker that normally contributes to MR. You are either a troll or agent provocateur. 73
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 08, 2008, 05:49 PM | # The candidate himself could be a Negro; if he said what this girl said in that interview I’d vote unhesitatingly for him though he were black as the Duke of Hell’s waistcoat . Differences between me and him? We’ll work those out later, after we defeat the common enemy. And damn right he’d be one of us. On open borders we’d be on the same side! 74
Posted by name on February 08, 2008, 06:12 PM | # Note: I concluded “Voice” was a jew well before he posted the comments above. His recent comments are consistent with that belief—not the basis for it. Previously, “Voice” has more or less directly stated he has jewish ancestry (while at the same time claiming to be part of a extremely swarthy, world-traveling “German” farm family from Minnesota, with a sister who has been mistaken for an Arab). 75
Posted by onlooker on February 08, 2008, 06:32 PM | # “Barbara Jordan, a Negro member of Congress from Texas, was one of us on open borders. So is Terry Anderson…” Point well taken. “I’d love to know how one obtains the audio.” You can obtain the audio by becoming a Glenn Beck subscriber. 77
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 08, 2008, 07:50 PM | # How Jewish preferences are apportioned between Obama and Hillary. 78
Posted by D.E. Johnson on February 09, 2008, 12:08 AM | # Note: I concluded “Voice” was a jew well before he posted the comments above. His recent comments are consistent with that belief—not the basis for it. Previously, “Voice” has more or less directly stated he has jewish ancestry (while at the same time claiming to be part of a extremely swarthy, world-traveling “German” farm family from Minnesota, with a sister who has been mistaken for an Arab). Don’t forget the emphasis on masking ethnocentric feelings. 79
Posted by Riley DeWiley on February 09, 2008, 04:59 AM | # Best case for the election:
Riley 80
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 09, 2008, 09:10 AM | # D.E. Johnson you’re being hypersensitive and irrational. 81
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 09, 2008, 10:59 AM | # The blessings we can look forward to in a McCain régime:
And who will make up the huge stampede of voters turning out for McInsane on Election Day?
82
Posted by adorned on February 09, 2008, 12:57 PM | # D.E. Johnson you’re being hypersensitive and irrational. Fred, how does that describe Johnson’s behavior? 83
Posted by D.E. Johnson on February 10, 2008, 10:18 PM | # D.E. Johnson you’re being hypersensitive and irrational. Should I take the red pill, or the blue pill? Maybe I’ll try prozac. Or watching reruns of the Superbowl, or Oprah. 85
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 11, 2008, 10:47 AM | # Highly-revealing update on Bush’s plans for after he flees the scene of the crime leaves the White House ... leaves the White House ......................... including glimpses into longstanding Bush-family ties with the Tex-Mex mafia/crony-capitalist world and expectations on Bush’s part of ultimately getting behind and supporting the political aspirations of his Mexican-American (and one-hundred-percent Mexican-looking and, like his uncle, Mexican-leaning, Mexican-sympathizing, and Mexico-preferring) nephew now that he’s packed the country with enough Mexican voters to give his for-all-intents-and-purposes-Mexican nephew a fighting chance at getting elected (which of course was always one of his main motivations: preparing the way for the furtherance of the Bush Dynasty). 86
Posted by Fr. John on February 11, 2008, 11:54 AM | # We need to welcome all comers to the tent, including the Peter Schiffs of this world. We need to keep naming the anti-white Jews(neocons) but respect the fact that all Jews are not evil. Hmm what does Patrick Grimm say about that? Yeah, sure. Let’s let in every deicide we can, and just hope they will be Christian-friendly. Fuhgeddaboudit. 87
Posted by Voice on February 11, 2008, 12:48 PM | # Fr. John, WN Christians are a good thing, the more the merrier I say. I am still not convinced how you are christian but yet exclude non-whites. I am sure you will quote a passage in the bible where the Jews tell you it is ok to do so. I don’t follow any Jewish Cults but yet don’t want to wipe them out, go figure. Do you support Ron Paul or the bible thumping DumbHuck? With your rules for political engagement, RP is a Jew lover. 88
Posted by onlooker on February 11, 2008, 03:03 PM | # LOL! On this thread we have Fr. John, et al, attacking Jews. On another thread we have so-called WN’s attacking Christianity. What a great formula/stradegy for attracting a wider following. Brilliant!!! At this rate, by the year 2200 the WN movement will swell to about 1000 members; the same number as whites projected to be left on the planet. 89
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 11, 2008, 05:09 PM | # Onlooker, today’s establishment Catholic and Protestant Christianity are squarely behind forced race-replacement: look at the mainline Protestant sects in the U.S., Episcopalians and Lutherans especially, look at the Archbishop of Canterbury, and look at the Pope and the Vatican Court. Do you see any sympathy among any of them for what needs to be done? Any sign of opposition to the other side who are pushing this crisis? Any evidence these mainstream Christians are not fully on-board with those seeking to push the castrophe to completion, in other words, get rid of the Euro races altogether? Mainstream Catholicism and Protestantism have aligned themselves with European man’s mortal enemies, in other words are viciously attacking European man, yet don’t expect to be counterattacked? That’s impossible: they’re going to be counterattacked. 90
Posted by onlooker on February 11, 2008, 05:58 PM | # Mr. Scrooby, I agree with you to a certain extent—or for the most part. But I don’t believe it’s the philosophy of Christianity that is our enemy. It’s the liberal heretics that invaded the Church (btw, they, the libs, subverted every other institution in the West—the government, public education, the arts…). As I’m sure you already know, modern liberalism came to predominate every aspect of Western culture right after WWII ended. ‘Modern Liberalism’ is the real enemy. Modern Liberalism is made up of a coalition of white hating homosexuals, radical feminists, racist Negroes, non-whites, a segment of Jews who are radical-paranoid-Christian-haters, etc. At least that’s the way I see it. 91
Posted by Voice on February 11, 2008, 06:00 PM | # thank you Fred, This is not to imply you agree with my position completely, but you are far and away the most logical WN(sorry you would call normal) and one of the reasons that I am drawn to this board. For all of you WN christian americans, you must realize that Christianity is virtually dead in much of Europe, our homeland. 10% church going public and one of the UK Church leaders calling for Sharia law isn’t a hopeful sign. Last time I was back in Newcastle Upon Tyne last summer the local churches were being converted into Mosques!!! This is not a joke. At least this beautiful church is safe when I visited last summer and I commented to my wife that the church used to be an expression of our people but now it promotes white genocide. What made it so beautiful? It had our Kings and warriors buried in the church who now would be charactised as white supremacists and oppressors. http://www.stnicholascathedral.co.uk/ I understand many white christians exhibit their phenotype through fellowship in their local church, but ,usually only in white homogeneous worshipping environments. If we could wave a magic wand wiping their christian identity, we could get whites to believe in any god as long as we make up a good story. I grew up on a farm in Iowa and went to a Methodist Church as a youth, but I now realize once your kids breed with a Negro , Asian or Amerind the Good Lord is not going to save Euroman’s soul from extinction-is this not true? Look, I agree as a movement we would have to recognize Christianity as our historical religion, and I still would label myself as culturally christian whilst understanding the era is dead. But, it only still exists because ALL whites don’t worship amongst negroes etc. If they did, it would be dead in a generation or two. They only worship today because the people in the church are like them racially. THIS IS THE GLUE THAT HOLDS IT TOGETHER. People still deceive themselves that religion is bringing them to believe in the Lord when actually it is a confirmation of their history and race(which their church elders constantly undermine). SO, If we take away their religion they will no longer blindingly love all of mankind to their own racial extinction, but in their re-awakening to a non christian consciousness, they will identify with their race first. At that time, we will be able to fight for ourselves as the white race and whites only. 92
Posted by Fr. John on February 13, 2008, 11:08 AM | # Onlooker, today’s establishment Catholic and Protestant Christianity are squarely behind forced race-replacement: look at the mainline Protestant sects in the U.S., Episcopalians and Lutherans especially, look at the Archbishop of Canterbury, and look at the Pope and the Vatican Court. Do you see any sympathy among any of them for what needs to be done? Any sign of opposition to the other side who are pushing this crisis? Any evidence these mainstream Christians are not fully on-board with those seeking to push the castrophe to completion, in other words, get rid of the Euro races altogether? Which clearly posits that they are not Christians, at least, as the Church has defined herself.\ For the Church clearly calls the Jews, Deicides,[pseudo] papal pronouncements notwithstanding. The Church clearly stated, as one of her most fervent apologists noted, that it is an European endeavor. “The Faith is Europe, Europe, the Faith.” (Belloc) The Church gave Europe Christendom, and vice versa. One cannot have the one, without the other. As modern events clearly indicated. As we have departed from Christendom, we have departed from Europe. The two are as interwoven, as the divine and human natures of Christ. 93
Posted by Fr. John on February 13, 2008, 11:10 AM | # “What a great formula/stradegy for attracting a wider following. Brilliant!!! “ Onlooker, clearly one or the other is incorrect.
94
Posted by onlooker on February 13, 2008, 11:34 AM | # “I stand on twenty centuries of Christian self-witness. Who do you stand on?”~~ Fr. John I stand on the same ground you, Fr. John. But that stance seems to be very unpopular— to say the least—with most that post at this site ..and those that post at AR too. 95
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 13, 2008, 12:12 PM | #
The fact that mainline Christianity is stabbing the Euro race in the back doesn’t help matters any, onlooker. You must admit that’s exactly what it’s doing. Yes I know “Fr.” John views today’s mainline Christianity as pseudo-Christianity and I agree with that. I talked about this in a few of my comments in this thread, and I’m on record elsewhere as calling race-traitor Christianity not true Christianity but a Christian heresy, since true Christianity doesn’t require or call for race-treason and these Church establishments act as if it did. Race-treason isn’t the only basis for calling today’s Church establishments followers of a heresy: look at the so-called “Unitarian” Church’s “workshops on polyamory” at its yearly meetings, and the Episcopalian Church’s ordaining of a man as bishop who abandoned his wife and children in order to live shacked-up with another man in an open homosexual “relationship.” (I put relationship in quotes because just as there can be no homosexual “marriage” there can be no homosexual “relationships.” There are man-woman “relationships” but only homosexual “shaking-up,” sorry.) BUT today’s Church establishments are the reality we have to deal with and they are as fervently in favor of race-replacement as the Jews, the Bush Administration, and the E.U. bureaucracy. Small wonder, then, it they’re not exactly winning any popularity contests at sites such as this one. Apart possibly from the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Christian Kinists may well be the only true Christians on the scene today. I’ve been seriously considering switching my own religious identification from Catholicism to Kinism. I’ve thought of switching to Russian Orthodox, the religion my Russian grandfather was raised in (who was, incidentally, a communist atheist all his adult life) but I want something Western-European-derived, not Eastern-European, and Kinism seems more like that. 96
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 13, 2008, 12:42 PM | # Not only are today’s Episcopalianism and Unitarianism no longer truly Christian, I would say they’re no longer truly religions at all. Neither one is a religion. They’re some sort of social club (the Unitarian one a highly immoral social club, in fact a sickening, nauseating one). When I drive by an Episcopalian Church these days I literally wonder to myself what goes on in there? Certainly not religion. Do they sit there all anemic and left-zombie-like and listen to some depressed low-IQ volunteer get up and strum a folksy painfully amateurish song on the guitar then talk about how great it is to ordain homos and practice polyamory? I dunno, something like that, I assume. There’s nothing churchlike going on in there. It’s like a radical left-wing bowling club full of personalityless lefty-zombies, not like a religion. Or at least, that’s what I imagine (I’ve never been inside an Episcopalian Church and since the ordination of Bishop Gene “Homo Wife-and-Family-Abandoner” Robinson I don’t plan to start any time soon). (Catholicism’s in grave danger of veering in that direction though it’s still hanging on by a thread.) The same goes, incidentally, for Reform Judaïsm: it’s no longer a religion — it’s left the realm of religion altogether. And if Conservative Judaïsm isn’t careful it’s going to wind up in the same boat. These days Orthodox Judaïsm (the religion Joe Lieberman claims he is though I see scant evidence of that in his behavior and the positions he takes and I have my doubts it’s true) is what ordinary Conservative Judaïsm was in my childhood, and Conservative Judaïsm today is so left-wing it’s in danger of leaving the realm of religion altogether. Everything has veered leftward, everything. 97
Posted by onlooker on February 13, 2008, 12:48 PM | # “I’ve been seriously considering switching my own religious identification from Catholicism to Kinism.” Funny you should mention that, Fred. I’ve been thinking along those same lines. You may already be acquainted with these sites; if not, I hope you find them as edifying as I do. http://www.scripturesforamerica.org/audio.htm#wwcr 98
Posted by Odysseus on February 13, 2008, 01:07 PM | # If you want to stick with Christianity, Platonism, and/or Hellenism, you might want ot check out Lindsay Wheeler’s site, the Doric Philosopher, before committing to anything. His writings on race are very helpful and the information about the Cretans and Spartans is very inspiring. This belief system has the advantage of being similar to Kinism without the radical break in understanding of who one’s forefathers were. If you are going to change religions completely, might I also suggest you check out Hellenismos, Asatru Theodism (the folkish brand), and, believe it or not, Mormonism. All are very European in origin and focus. 99
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 13, 2008, 01:25 PM | # I agree Lindsay Wheeler is an impressive thinker on these matters. I don’t agree with everything he says of course but he’s got a strong mind, considerable learning, a solid moral sense, and he’s sane on race. Same for Perun (who doesn’t get around much any more — haven’t seen him since the atheists hounded him out of the Occidental Dissent Forum a while back). I’ve thought of Mormonism ever since learning from Constantin von Hoffmeister (who lived with them for a year) that they’re sound on race, morality, and birth rates, but there’s too much stuff about their religion that I could never swallow. I could never be a Mormon, though thanks to Constantin they have my utmost respect. 100
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 13, 2008, 01:32 PM | # What I find absolutely outrageous is the Vatican sitting on its hands instead of clarifying the race issue for Catholics so Catholics will understand their religion does NOT require racial suicide of them. I cannot express how angry Vatican negligence in this regard makes me — assuming it’s negligence and not something even worse, such as deliberate positioning in favor of forced race-replacement of Euros ... which is not inconceivable on their part, especially if they’re predominantly homosexuals, which is, I would say, a safe bet. I hate the Vatican homos as much as I hate President Bush. They are moral criminals — sinners of the worst kind, to put in Catholic language they can understand. 101
Posted by onlooker on February 13, 2008, 02:29 PM | # “What I find absolutely outrageous is the Vatican sitting on its hands instead of clarifying the race issue for Catholics so Catholics will understand their religion does NOT require racial suicide of them.” It’s because the racial demographics of those that belong to the Catholic Church are shifting from white to non-white very fast. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if from the next private meeting of the cardinals at the conclave, they elect a Negro as Pope. In fact it’s probably a sure bet the next Pope will be a non-white Hispanic, or a Negro. Obama as the first Negro president, and Pope Leroy as the first Negro Pope. 102
Posted by John Marshall on February 14, 2008, 09:19 PM | # Hi Folks, My name is John Marshall, and I’m the administrator of Kinism.net The other leaders of the Kinist movement and I hope that you will give our views a hearing. I’d be delighted to discuss our positions with anyone who has a sincere interest in finding a parachurch organization that can steer them to resources that will help awaken their awareness that racial integrity is a chief tenet of genuine Christianity, as well as connect them with a growing community of likeminded men and women who are both self-consciously White-loving and people of real faith, grounded in the ways of their forefathers. Please contact me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or simply visit us at www.kinism.net and peruse the articles there or join us on our forums. Blessings, 103
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 18, 2008, 04:23 PM | # Obama’s speeches are making clueless white women voters all across the country swoon and faint dead away in sheer ecstasy. Ambulances are called, the podium keeps water bottles ready to be passed back through the rows of listerers to revive unconscious clueless white women voters who’ve apparently just experienced their best orgasms ever, better even than what they’re used to getting at a Tom Jones or Michael Bolton concert. It’s bigger than Elvis (no that’s NOT what I meant there by “it’s” and no, no pun was intended, I’m sure). If this keeps up, Obama could get even bigger than ... Garth Brooks ... Barry Manilow, or even ... (gulp!!! ...) .... Benny Hinn!!!!! Doctors are warning all clueless white women voters out there that fainting can be dangerous, so those who are thinking of attending a Barack Obama concert speech are strongly advised to: 1) bring your husbands along — their pot bellies, balding hairlines, and annoying and embarrassing personalities may break the spell of Obama’s voice; 2) if that fails, have a paper bag handy to clamp over your face and breathe into once the hyperventilation, feelings of ecstasy, and approaching orgasm begin; and 3) be sure to have plenty of pairs of dry nix in your purse to change into: you won’t want to sit there all evening with moist ones on, and also there’ll be that irresistible urge to take them off and throw them up onstage for Obama to wipe the perspiration off his face with. 104
Posted by Robert Reis on February 26, 2008, 04:14 PM | # If this is true, I may vote for Obama. Barack Obama has semi-publicly (‘off the record’, but with a transcript made available by his campaign!) announced (found via here) that he is running as a candidate for the No More Wars For the Jews Party (an announcement made in front of an Jewish audience in Cleveland). Of course, he had to reveal his candidacy in code, as the More Wars For the Jews Party, the party of McCain and Clinton, doesn’t officially exist, and thus the No More Wars For the Jews Party can’t exist either. For similar reasons, watch for the announcement to be ignored by the mainstream American media. From xymphora 105
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 06, 2008, 09:42 AM | # On top of the media’s carefully-cultivated “Tom-Jones-type women’s-pop-star” image for Obama at his speeches, an image aimed of course at clueless white women voters (and, apparently, quite successfully), Obama is now being carefully propagandized by the media as a saint with a halo. See him in this photo: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080606/pl_nm/usa_politics_obama_race_dc (Hat tip: http://westbiop.blogspot.com/2008/06/doomwatch-saint-obama.html ) 106
Posted by 357 on June 06, 2008, 10:24 AM | # Lately I’ve been searching for reasons to vote for Juan McAmNASTY. I really can’t stand the creep but he IS relatively better than BO. But every time Juan opens his mouth, he reminds me why I’m going to vote for a third-party candidate as a protest. Given the fact that Juan deliberately rubs “dirt” in the faces of his conservative base every chance he gets, I’m starting to think his real function in this election is to make sure B Hussein Obama gets elected. Just as his bosses, Soros and Bloomberg, et al, planned. 107
Posted by 357 on June 06, 2008, 11:30 AM | # I can remember watching a round table discussion (I think it was on CNN?) back in November of 07, and the question was asked if Michael Bloomberg were going to enter the presidential race. Gloria Borger spoke up and said: “I’ve heard from credible sources close to Bloomberg that if Obama and McCain are NOT the nominees, then he will enter into the race.” Back in Nov. of 07 Hillary looked unstoppable. McCain was way down in the polls. Within a few months, a radical change took place. Why did McCain, the worst Republican candidate rise to the top? Why did Obama, the most unqualified candidate amongst the Democratic field catapult to the top? Tis an ill wind a blowin’ across this once great land of ours! Next entry: Delphi Primaries Previous entry: The black ones they sent back |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. UK Dissertations Help commented in entry 'A small anecdote and some reflections on race and culture' on 05/25/12, 02:14 AM. (go) (view) Roof Leaks commented in entry 'YOBS' on 05/25/12, 01:16 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/25/12, 12:41 AM. (go) (view) pletcheroka commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/25/12, 12:36 AM. (go) (view) Graistetrisog commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/25/12, 12:19 AM. (go) (view) BomeDeddell commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/24/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) indernMix commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/24/12, 09:42 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 04:44 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:20 PM. (go) (view) grecian commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:10 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:04 PM. (go) (view) Salvatore Quinto commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/24/12, 12:47 PM. (go) (view) Classic Sparkle commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 12:07 PM. (go) (view) Cobus commented in entry 'A genocide in South Africa' on 05/24/12, 10:14 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 09:49 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 08:54 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:41 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:18 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:53 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:48 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:47 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:32 AM. (go) (view) Guest commented in entry 'The Torment of the Mulattoes' on 05/24/12, 06:17 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by melba peachtoast on February 04, 2008, 10:28 PM | #
If the Tribe wants a darky as their puppet the Tribe will get a darky as their puppet. Even a wallaby knows that.