|
|
|
Ron Paul’s Black and Hispanic Government Gangs Want to Rape You on the Fourth of July On the Fourth of July, the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, “The Ron Paul Phenomenon” takes on added significance. It brings to a head the original intent of the Founders when they drew a line in the dirt, saying, “This is our land.” and upon that foundation of Independence, said, with the US Constitution, “This is our law.” These were men ready, willing and able to take up arms for their land and law. The fireworks displays on the Fourth of July are symbolic of the fact that they did take up arms to enforce their Independence. Ron Paul, however, is committed to non-violent “civil disobedience” within which people accept the punishment of unjust law after openly violating said law. Where is Ron Paul’s equivalent “line in the dirt”? When does he say, “Enough is enough… this government has lost any moral right to demand ‘civil disobedience’ and is now subject to armed rebellion.”? If it is not when the government sexually tortures idealistic young men in its prisons—preferrentially targetting with sexual torture young white men, the men most likely to be a taxable resource to it, then when, pray Godan, is it that he considers violent opposition legitimate? That is where we stand today—and it is to those young men Ron Paul must answer when he demands non-violent resistance to government tyranny. Comments:2
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:25 | #
3
Posted by LOLWUT on Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:34 | # What in god’s name are you talking about. This article is incoherent. 4
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:45 | # Yet more evidence that “dialog” is not really an option. 5
Posted by Thomas on Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:09 | # I tried to understand this article, but I can’t. 6
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:29 | # If you’re a white guy, I suggest you try going to Washington, D.C. and engaging in “civil disobedience”, as the founder of Stop Prisoner Rape did during the Viet Nam War. Spend a few nights in jail there and your reading comprehension will go from, say 6th grade to 9th grade. With your reading comprehension thus improved, I suggest you write Ron Paul and ask him why he doesn’t have his sons and grandsons go to Washington D.C. and engage in “civil disobedience” and “accept the consequences of the law” in Washington, D.C. jails. If you’re not white, its pretty obvious why the article wouldn’t “parse”. In the mean time, there are those of us who have a nation to protect. 7
Posted by Justin on Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:40 | # I dont even how to comment on this. This looks like a 14 year old malaysian student with very poor english skills wrote this. WOW that is probably the most incoherent inane bbale ive ever read/ and yes im white 8
Posted by wjg on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 00:27 | # James, If a goodly portion of Paul’s supporters are using his candidacy for their own ends and don’t believe a lot of RP’s naivety re. how ZOG treats White dissidents (etc.) what is gained in the unlikely event that he wins? He will clearly disown and denounce any racialist support as it violates his publicly avowed faith in the delusion of human Lysenkoism. That this “faith” is coerced and is as surprising as any Medieval European’s belief in the power of witches is secondary. Bottom line is Paul holds to it. He would be dead, in prison, or at least out of a job if he didn’t. If your argument is that “we” need to gain experience in the political process even if we are anathematized by our beneficiaries, then that has some validity. Another possibility is “we” show many heretofore uncommitted, but potential, White Nationalists what can possibly be done if we act as a bloc. I’m guessing. What is to be gained? 9
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 01:17 | # Those familiar with Ron Paul’s campaign are familiar with his non-violence, work-within-the-system, civil disobedience message. That is not the message of the Declaration of Independence upon which he hangs his hat. If he’s serious about his message, he needs to empty the prisons to stop the sexual torture of the most heroic and morally courageous. Prison reform has not worked and will not until the government pays back every penny in taxes it has collected under threat of such sexually sadistic penalties—with punitive damages—and those responsible for the abomination of “governance” punished properly. 10
Posted by Amalek on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:52 | # Let’s see if I can parse Mr Bowery for you: “It’s violent revolution or nothing for the white majority. Politics? Forget it, you dumb schmucks! Oh, you don’t fancy violent revolution? Then you’re doomed, doomed, I tell you, and don’t expect me to do anything but sit on my fanny here and feel superior while a few more election cycles come and go. “If you want to know why any conceivable candidate is a waste of space, I’m your man. There’s really nothing to choose between Barack Obama or Ron Paul, dummies. “Now quit bothering me, I’m going back into my Superiority Bubble for some deep thinking about the analogies between human beings and algae.” 11
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 09:16 | # An interesting question to which I do not have an answer: Does Ron Paul’s candidacy hasten or delay the fall of civilization? The illusion that civilization can be fixed short of someone with vastly deeper understanding than Paul taking charge of the situation is not one to which I am victim. I tend to think his candidacy hastens the fall of civilization through reductio ad absurdum, but I may be wrong—he may actually be serious about and able to enact freedom of association with territorial allocation prior to civilization’s fall. 12
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:11 | # Amalek, pray consider it possible that you may be wrong. Every modern society is subject to urban drift and its concomitant prosperity because the city is where the power resides. In poor old Bowery’s world empowerment comes from a perpetuallly running episode of ‘The Good Life’. 13
Posted by Scimitar on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 16:18 | # I can’t bring myself to vote for Ron Paul. Philosophically, we are antipodes. I’m actually quite proud to be a dirty “collectivist.” Below, Ron Paul on racialism. A succinct insight into why liberalism must be extirpated root and branch: From 2002
From 2007:
14
Posted by Scimitar on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 16:21 | #
See Paris Hilton for an example of how “free-market capitalism” rewards “individual achievement and competence.” 15
Posted by gongstar on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 16:26 | # I’m afraid the criticism of the prose is right. I wondered who the new and not-very-literate blogger was. You can and usually do write much better, JB.
As usual in the looking-glass world of the Judaeoverse, the lesser problem of rape outside prison is given infinitely more attention, because it’s another lever for bringing down the evil white patriarchy. What minute percentage of Jews go to prison, let alone suffer there what countless whites suffer? Jews loosed the savages responsible and have incited them to hatred of whites decade on decade. 16
Posted by Scimitar on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 16:42 | # WJG, A vote for Ron Paul is on the same level as a vote for Barry Goldwater. Like Goldwater, Ron Paul has occasionally voted against legislation hostile to our racial interests (the Emmett Till Civil Rights Act being the most recent example), but for totally different reasons. Aligning ourselves with disgruntled conservatives or libertarians, backing their aracial agenda in the name of pragmatism, takes us once again down the slippery slope of deracialization. Interest, not delusional abstractions, must always serve as our political compass. The ex-segregationists of the 1960s would have been better off dropping out of politics altogether than joining the conservative movement and swallowing its poison. I can think of only one exception to this rule: punishing mainstream politicians for their more egregious actions. Case in point, the Republicans like Lindsey Graham and John McCain who supported the Bush amnesty. We must impose social pricing on them in a manner similar to how the Israel Lobby punishes politicians who vote against their interests. Purely temporary alliances of convenience should suffice for this purpose. 17
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 16:55 | # Scimitar, Ron Paul’s statement, stripped of its moralizing tone, is essentially this: Get rid of affirmative action and other government interventions to correct private decisions and let things sort out within that more-natural environment. This is a damn sight better than the current EEOC hell, although it does violate Ron Paul’s position that key moral decisions should be left up to the states. There was a problem early in the Republic when the issue of immigration and interstate travel was addressed—resolving these issues incorrectly because of the abundance of land compared to labor, the natural tendency for labor to come from western Europe and the tendency for Western Europeans to actually let each other practice freedom of religion on their own territories, resulting in populations like the Amish today. These decisions need to be revisited under an “original intent” interpretation. That’s part of what I mean when I say Ron Paul isn’t radical enough for me. What the moralizing tone is saying, combined with his failure of principles on the issue of state’s rights, is that in Ron Paul is cowed by the issue enough to make a relatively rare break in principle—and that he is not reliable as a supporter of freedom of association. That said, he is still a good rallying point—not to learn political action—but to possibly bring to justice the intense criminality that has had the Republic in a strangle hold. 18
Posted by anon on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:03 | # But Scimitar there is a big difference between government enforced collectivism and personal ‘collectivism’ which is just freedom of association. America never needed to be socialist collectivist for the first 300 years to be highly radicalist. People throughout the world almost always choose to live with others of their own kind unless some kind of power is pushing them to do otherwise, Ron Paul wants to reduce that power. Besides, no candidate is going to say 100% exactly what he believes especially if he was opposed to multi-culturalism, whats important is his voting record over a long period of time and as someone else already pointed out, his is pretty good compared to the others. 19
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:08 | # Et Tu Gongstar? Then rewrite, Bowery. The problem with having 3 of 3 “critics” showing up and posting for the first time on MR within a few hours is that it looks more like a rhetorical tactic coming from a hostile position, than it does a legitimate complaint from a general audience. I did write this post for a too narrow audience—targeting it at people who were racialists, shared a lot of my concerns about libertarian foundations, knew a lot about Ron Paul and cared about what he had said about promoting non-violence in stark contrast to the readiness for war implied by the Declaration of Independence. I’ll elucidate each of those areas to reach a wider audience at some point. For now, I’ll make it more concise. 20
Posted by Amalek on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 18:16 | # I think it’d be better if you just kept quiet for a few days—or weeks. You’re developing the same grandiose “I set the agenda” tone as the late unlamented JJR. Let’s hear from a few others, preferably those who haven’t given up on hardscrabble politics in favour of la-di-da demands for some vague epuration at some unspecified date in the far distant future. GW, rustle them up! 21
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 19:28 | # Good idea, Amalek. I’ve got much more important things to do anyway. See ya after a while. 22
Posted by Scimitar on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 23:09 | #
How exactly are racialists in America to engage in hardscrabble politics? What do you propose? Personally, I think the focus should be on media building and consciousness-raising. Outside of the Deep South, I don’t think we have the numbers to make much of an impact on the political system. 23
Posted by second class citizen on Fri, 06 Jul 2007 03:55 | # Amalek, I’m skeptical of hardscrabble politics being the answer. Maybe just make the alternative a bit less ladida? Recruiting racialists in an era of abundant bread and circuses will naturally reach a point of diminishing returns - the harder you search, the more fairweather friends you find, and the less chance the highly committed have to procreate, because they spend their efforts on proseletyzing. In light of the genetic imperative (to increase the security of those in the world most genetically similar to me, as t -> infinity), I’d rather be sure of victory through exponential growth than throw my life savings at a lottery ticket just because I couldn’t bear the thought of not seeing my goals realized in my lifetime. Look at the founders of political correctness - how many lived past 1980, to see the noxious seeds they had created finally bear their fetid fruit? I don’t think they even got to see MTV, the first Bratz doll, or Reagan’s amnesty. Or even hear the term PC enter common parlance. I have no objection to anything else you said though. I think all JB needs is to solicit someone he trusts to preview his articles before they go live, and iteratively edit them until they make sense on the first read. 24
Posted by festering pustule on Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:25 | # Having seen many people “burned” by their dashed hopes for “conservatives” of all types, I believe the following to be true. - The “sophisticated” tactic of “reading between the lines” to discern what a person (e.g., a politician) “really believes but is afraid to say” is extreme naivete. - The “naive” and “simple-minded” tactic of taking at face value a person’s actual words and actions is the height of sophistication. Thus, Mr. Paul may well be the “best” of the current candidates, but it is going to lead to bitter disappointment to try and “parse” his statements into something with more than a hint of palatability. 25
Posted by Fr. John on Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:22 | # What I read here, is that you guys dislike Paul because he isn’t a white racialist. realist, etc. But what he IS, is a man devoted to upholding the Constitution. His record and his statements are clear on this one. He also, (as far as I can tell) is not a whore for Israel, which is saying a LOT these days! So, why ‘kvetch’ over the fact that his [Paul’s] views are NOT as racially aware as y’all? How long did it take YOU fellows to get there? Lord knows, it took me over twenty five YEARS. I’d rather vote for Paul, knowing that he is ‘pie-in-the-sky’ about some things (racial realities) for the simple fact that he wants to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, rather than the Yid whores, slaves, and other ‘Hiilary-ious’ ‘Obamanations’ masquerading as politicians in the marketplace today!! It’s a matter of ‘playing the game.’ I’d prefer a constitutional hereditary folkish King, frankly, but, in the wake of Ahab II (Jorge Booosh) after Ahab I (Wm. Clinton) ANYONE is better than Jezebel, Hillary! 26
Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:04 | #
Ron Paul isn’t merely a non-racist. He’s also an anti-racist (and a libertarian to boot). Yes, I readily grant that Ron Paul is devoted to “upholding the Constitution.” The Constitution, however, includes the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments which are utterly hostile to our interests.
As the commentator “festering pustule” pointed out above, you are seeing in Ron Paul what you want to see. I would love to believe that Ron Paul truly has our interests at heart. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any persuasive evidence to that effect, and much to the contrary.
I have always been a racialist. Fortunately, I was raised in one of the few parts of the country where white racial consciousness is still the norm. Browse the excerpts posted from Ron Paul’s statements above. In five years, his views haven’t budged an inch on this issue. He simply repeats his Randroid mantra about “collectivism” being evil and how “individualism” is the antidote to racialism.
If those are your choices, why vote at all? Why extend legitimacy to the corrupt two-party system that excludes us from the mainstream?
This sort of thinking is precisely why we are in this situation. Actually, it would be better for Hillary to win and the “conservative” false opposition to her implode. Perhaps then a true resistance movement to the status quo might emerge from the wreckage. In 2006, with the GOP in charge of Congress, “comprehensive immigration reform” passed the Senate rather easily. In 2007, with the Democrats in control, it failed. Also, in 2006, a sizeable number of House Republicans (under the leadership of Mike Pence) were willing to support the bill. In 2007, Bush could count on the support of only a handful of House Republicans. Even if “comprehensive immigration reform” had squeaked out a victory in the Senate, it would have been doomed in the House. One last thing. If the Democrats took control the White House in 2008, a strong possibility exists that they would pull out of Iraq. For years now, the War in Iraq has dominated the American political scene and has been a constant distraction from the immigration debate. If we left, that would change. It is in our best interests to shift the attention of the nation back to domestic issues like immigration. 27
Posted by festering pustule on Sat, 07 Jul 2007 00:25 | # “If those are your choices, why vote at all? Why extend legitimacy to the corrupt two-party system that excludes us from the mainstream? ANYONE is better than Jezebel, Hillary! This sort of thinking is precisely why we are in this situation. Actually, it would be better for Hillary to win and the “conservative” false opposition to her implode. Perhaps then a true resistance movement to the status quo might emerge from the wreckage.” Obviously, I strongly agree with Scimitar; his thinking on these issues is remarkably similar to my own. The GOP is, ultimately, a much greater threat to white interests than the Democrats. The Democrats are an obvious enemy - so obvious that the system can use them to stampede the white herd in the direction of failed conservatism time and time again. The GOP on the other hand, to the ignorant masses, is the hidden enemy, the dead-end, the detour to oblivion. Anyone but Hillary? Who? McCain? Giuliani? Anti-racist Ron Paul? Look, if people here want to support Ron Paul, go ahead. Maybe if Ezola Foster is too busy to consider being his running mate, he can always ask Carol Swain to give it a shot. We gotta fight that “racist collectivism”, don’t you know. Been there, done that. After Reagan’s 1980 election, I seem to remember that at least one KKK chapter disbanded because “we won!” I wonder if they regrouped after the 1986 illegal immigrant amnesty. In 2000, you actually had people - well, at least one deluded soul online - thinking that Buchanan was going to impose martial law and “clean up America” - a fantasy quickly followed by Foster and Francis’ revelation, which was discussed online at the time, that after knowing “right-wing Pat” for 30 years, they never had even one frank discussion about race. Now, in 2008 it’s Ron Paul. In 2012, it’ll be someone else. How many times will you be fooled? 28
Posted by festering pustule on Sat, 07 Jul 2007 00:50 | # “The reason non-racialist Ron Paul is ultimately on our side on race is the same as the reason race-replacement-denying JJR is ultimately on our side….Euros don’t need elaborate structural protection to survive and thrive, only a fair chance — an equal playing field and the basic right to freedom of association, both of which libertarians such as Ron Paul and JJR not only favor but favor strongly.” Right. And if whites use that “equal playing field” to organize on racial collectivist lines, then Paul and Ray denounce that and become the enemy. If “freedom of association” leads to racial separatism and tribalism, then one can expect Paul and Ray to denounce that as well. No, what they wish is to merely have “reforms” such as ending quotas and so forth, to encourage whites to think “they problem is solved, let’s all be individualists”, while, of course, non-whites will continue to practice ethnic nepotism, and whites will be too atomized to put up resistance to race replacement, or anything else. No. If you need to explain why and how someone is “really on your side”, chances are they are not. If you need to question and wonder about it, then you already have your answer. When a people are facing extinction, they shouldn’t be in a position to have to try and “parse” every statement by some leader for “clues” to what ‘their real position is”, the “position” they would champion if “only they had the chance.” Wishful thinking, perhaps born out of despair. No more “men on white horses” to save the day - Reagan, Buchanan, Putin, now Ron Paul…. 29
Posted by Andy Wooster on Sat, 07 Jul 2007 03:10 | # I’m no fan of Ron Paul, but I do have an old prep school mate who is fond of proselytizing for his campaign. My friend mentioned that Paul had taken some flak regarding some remarks he had made about black criminality in the past. My curiosity piqued, I googled the term “Ron Paul racist”. One of the the results was the following from some sort of center-right blog: Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks. “Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,“Paul wrote. Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered “as decent people.” Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote: “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul said. Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”
and this: “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.” http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010033.php Interesting to note in light of the columns that Scimitar linked above. Did Paul’s Randroid epiphany come after he wrote the preceding (1992) or did he simply decide to sacrifice principle in order to gain the (extremely modest) popularity that he now enjoys? Note: I agree fully with everything festering pustule has posted above. I know that in posting this, I may inadvertently provide fuel to the delusional crowd that has adopted Paul as its latest knight on a white horse. Hopefully most MR readers are more intelligent than that. 30
Posted by ****55** on Sat, 07 Jul 2007 04:19 | # Scimitar, you ‘see in [White-Supremacism] what you want to see’. You ignore all other examples from history except the American South. Amalek, this a group blog coming at an issue from multiple perspectives. I don’t appreciate every writer here (Jim Bowery is one I do), but to attack a writer whose work isn’t to your taste - even JJR - for posting too often is ridiculous. In any case, some of the guff you’ve posted about how our problems will be solved by a) miscegenation with Blacks, b) not dealing with Jews as a group, c) being nice to our British Muslims, d) the imminent awakening of our political class, and e) a return to Christianity always reminded me a little of JJR. Why do you even read this blog? Its ‘issues’ are not yours. 31
Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 07 Jul 2007 06:52 | #
I’m not following your analogy. Let’s return to the point made by anon above: “America never needed to be socialist collectivist for the first 300 years to be highly radicalist. All we need is the freedom of association to make our own choices regarding this and in that way Ron Paul is good for us.” I wrote a response to this, but lost it in a computer crash. The only region of America that was “highly radicalist” insofar as race goes for “300 years” was the American South - anti-miscegenation laws from 1661 to 1967. The differences between the South and other parts of the United States are instructive. In the South, unlike New England, “white supremacy” was the reigning philosophy for hundreds of years, not aracial liberal abstractions. The maintenance of “white supremacy” took precedence over all other concerns: liberty, equality, tolerance, “rights of the individual,” “freedom of association,” even the Union itself. “Freedom of association” was violated in countless ways - two hundreds years of slavery, followed by one hundred years of social segregation in housing, employment, public accomodations, and education, anti-miscegenation laws in every Southern state, hundreds of state statutes and obscure local ordinances that regulated racial interaction in everything from seating on buses, to playing checkers in public, to who congregate on public beaches. “White supremacy” was a “collectivist” worldview and would be recognized by Ron Paul as such. For hundreds of years, it was the essence of our culture. Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy, put it best:
Indeed, it was. The Jim Crow South was a one party state for over half a century. “Politics” was not something we could afford. The preservation of white supremacy within a hostile Union demanded a united Southern contigent in Congress. For decades, Southern filibusters in the U.S. Senate were the only thing that held off federal civil rights reform. The opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was led almost exclusively by Southerners. It was one of the most sectional votes in American history. “Freedom of association” didn’t inspire the Klan to wage a terrorist war against the Union Army and free Negroes for almost ten years to end Reconstruction. It didn’t motivate the Jim Crow laws. The segregationists fought to the bitter end against social equality to preserve their vision of America as a “white man’s country.” Although “freedom of association” and “states’ rights” were invoked to justify their actions, underpinning them was a fundamental racialist worldview. It is telling that white supremacy only began to falter when its supporters began to retreat away from race as their rationale and substitute “states’ rights” and “freedom of association” in its place. Later, it was “conservatism.”
There are several reasons for this: 1.) Insofar as American history goes, the racial regime that arose in the South was the longest enduring and is central to any discussion of the issue. 2.) The Confederacy in its various incarnations, antebellum and postbellum, is exceptional as a racial regime. There are two other major examples: Nazi Germany, 1933-1945 and Apartheid South Africa, 1949-1985. The British also flirted with racialism in their colonies. Australia had the “White Australia Policy” for many years. Other than a handful of brief parallels abroad, mostly outside of Europe, Europeans lack much experience with intense racial consciousness. It is a rather novel development for them. 3.) I would be happy to do a comparative analysis of the Third Reich and the Confederacy. For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that both regimes subscribed to a highly collectivist ethos. The former based itself upon “National Socialism.” The latter upon a combination of “white supremacy” with illiberal republicanism. Of the two regimes, the Confederacy was the most extreme. Only in the Confederacy was the fundamental humanity of the Negro called into question. The Negro was considered property. He could be bought and sold at will. White children would regularly address a Negro man as “boy” and he would address them in turn as “master.” Hitler had something like this in mind for Eastern Europe, but his ideal of ethnic cleansing and the rule of the Herrenvolk was actually realized in the American South. 4.) The terminology of “White Nationalism” and its ideal of racial separatism is as old as the American nation. It is closely related to “white supremacy.” They are different species of the same genus; different expressions of the same tradition. 32
Posted by festering pus-filled carbuncle on Sat, 07 Jul 2007 15:43 | # A quote by “he’s on our side” JJR: “And let’s look at the blogosphere. Two of the bloggers I think most highly of are Razib and “Godless” of Gene Expression. But Razib is a brown-skinned man of Bangladeshi origin and, if my memory serves me rightly, “Godless” is a Jew. Is not that diversity a strength? Are we not benefited by having those two people to exchange ideas with? If Americans had not welcomed the families of both men into their midst, Razib might just be swatting flies in a Bengali village and “Godless” might be marooned in an East-European shtetl. So I am all for real diversity and utterly against the parody of diversity preached by Leftists.” Of course “Godless” is not “a Jew”, but JJR never let those inconvenient things called facts get in his way. 33
Posted by festering pustule boil on Sat, 07 Jul 2007 15:48 | # “Are we not benefited by having those two people to exchange ideas with?” First, what “benefit” is derived from the intellectual trash spewed forth by those two indviduals escapes me. Second, since we live in an age of instantaneous global electronic communications, websites, and blogs we can “exchange ideas” with various peoples without having them leave their homelands and migrate to the West. However, to a person with a vested personal interest in replacing white “yobs” with “well-mannered” Asians, any absurdity is eagerly grasped at. Is this person “on our side?” 34
Posted by cladrastis on Sat, 07 Jul 2007 17:24 | # This is only tangentially related to the above topic, but when I looked up shtetl (from festering pus-filled carbuncle’s post) on Wikipedia, I found links to two pages on all-Hasidic communities in New York (Kiryas Joel and New Square). Apparently, Hasids are already permitted the freedom of association to create their own communities and exclude whomever they want (by way of shunning, I’m sure). I thought this might be interesting to GT and Maguire, since they are trying to figure out how to do the same thing for Euro-Americans. One interesting thing I found in the post is the following: “The community in New Square is made up exclusively of Hasidic Jews, mostly from the Skverer Hasidic sect, who wish to maintain a Hasidic lifestyle while keeping outside influences to a minimum.” whilst on demographics it says: “The racial makeup of the village was 96.95% White, 1.64% African American, 0.89% Asian, and 0.52% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.41% of the population.” I wonder if one would really see any black or brown faces in such a kosher village - maybe they took a bit of poetic license on the last census form. Then, “The New Square community does not allow any sub-groups to form that would undermine the homogeneity of Skver. It is for that reason that no other schools, synagogues, or even private minyanim are allowed.” The Wiki article also goes on to state that New Square is self sustainable, but: “About 67.0% of families and 72.5% of the population were below the poverty line, including 77.3% of those under age 18… “ and likely receiving all sorts of government welfare/subsidies/etc. Anyway, I was intrigued by this info, and thought others might be as well. 35
Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 07 Jul 2007 17:33 | #
Because the government is held hostage to private interest groups, especially the pro-business lobby, which JJR and other libertarians would empower. What exactly is their complaint? That public policies are auctioned off to the highest bidder? Isn’t that just their beloved “free market” in action? 36
Posted by festering pustule on Sat, 07 Jul 2007 17:50 | # “JJR and Ron Paul would, if true to their principles, fight to give us that fair chance.” Ah, yes…IF true to their principles. Let that “fair chance” blossom into white racial collectivist action against the subcons and you’ll see how fast Ray and Paul pull the plug on their support for the “fair chance.” Libertarianism is supported to the extent that “unfettered freedom” benefits what the libertarians perceive to be in their best interests. Wouldn’t the Ray and Paul opposition to government action also apply to a situation in which whites - empowered by their “fair chance” - use governmental power to repatriate and/or separate from non-whites? What would Paul and Ray say then? Stop trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Neither Ray or Paul are “on our side”, “fundamentally” or otherwise. 37
Posted by William on Sun, 08 Jul 2007 05:26 | # “The Jews aren’t trying to be supreme but are simply trying to strengthen themselves by harming those they see as their enemies (us).” While that sentence was written in the context of opposing the definition of Jewish nationalism as Jewish supremacy, we still have Jewish supremacy to deal with. Every instance of naming or labeling people who are not in the group that includes the namer or labeler is obviously based on a claim to supremacy. When a Jew calls you a Gentile, his motive is to demonstrate his power and supremacy by putting you in a category that includes, for example, Hottentots, Australian & Canadian Aborigines, and Palestinians. The Jew’s failure to demonstrate an awareness of the diversity of the rest of the world, and to demand that the world is divided into only two categories of discourse is explicitly based on the Jew’s claim to supremacy which has many other evidences than just this. It’s not the accidental naming or the slurring so much that demonstrates the claim to supremacy, it is the consistent refusal to change the character trait that claims superior rights and supremacy. White peoples have demonstrated a claim to supremacy over other groups through the same device, but between PC and a newer sense of good manners, it is happening less and less. But Jews categorically refuse to let go of their claim to naming power. Remember that the first two marks of oppression are (1) you are labeled by the other and (2) you internalize the world view and the rights of the namer to label you. Naming is not the be-all and end-all, but it is a remarkable way to measure who is claiming supremacy and who isn’t. 38
Posted by Robert ap Richard on Mon, 09 Jul 2007 16:46 | # You guys are crazy if you expect any candidate anywhere to give even the slightest appearance of racial realism; the political climate is impossible for that sort of thing. What Whites need is what Ron Paul proposes: freedom of association. FOA will destroy all institutional anti-Whitism—no more forced integration in the schools, at work, or in your neighborhoods. True FOA realized, Whites would be free to set up millions of Whites-only groups, neighborhoods, associations, etc. Ron Paul is much more committed to the Constitution and the vision of America of the Founders than he is to multiculturalism. His personal feelings about race negated by his actions toward his Constitutional ideals. Ron’s the only chance we have at the presidential level—no one else even comes close. I’m dissappointed that more of you cannot see this. 39
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:53 | #
Political climates can change. They’re not graven in stone thought it’s true they can appear to be, which can make people lose heart at the outset and not even try to challenge them. That’s what the other side wants, a reputation of invincibility. Let’s never give it to them, shall we? Things changed from the way they used to be to give us the nightmare we have now. They can change back if we make them but if we’re passive and insist on nothing and discuss nothing of course they won’t ever change back. How do you get political climates to change? Well, one necessary step is by talking about alternatives. Just talking about them. That’s what we’re doing here. Ideas once expressed take root and grow if they’re made of the right stuff. If they’re made of the wrong stuff of course they shrivel up and disappear. Ours here are made of the right stuff (and yes, when last I checked they were taking root and growing very nicely indeed, thank you).
Excellent point and I agree with this. Commenter “Festering pustule” is skeptical of this notion but I think you’re making an extremely important point, one that touches on the pivotal intersection between us and the libertarians, that which makes it possible for us to find their candidates acceptable (BUT they have to be faithful to their principles, otherwise they’re worse than useless for us).
Again, I’m no libertarian but I could support Ron Paul. In fact if Tom Tancredo weren’t in the race (or possibly Duncan Hunter either) he’s the one who’d get my support. 40
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:02 | #
In 2004, voters in my home state of Alabama defeated an attempt to strike segregationist language out of our state constitution. I voted in that election. Several years before that, a majority of white voters in Alabama voted against symbolically repealing our state anti-miscegenation law. The vote to repeal South Carolina’s anti-miscegenation law was also very close. All of this happened with zero effort on the part of racial nationalists to influence voters. It is simply inaccurate to say we are crazy for expecting “any candidate anywhere to give even the slightest appearance of racial realism.” In Mississippi, Jim Giles got thousands of votes in 2004. So did David Duke when he ran for office in Louisiana a decade or so ago. Even the mainstrean polls show that about 10% of white Americans still have strong racialist views. That translates into millions of people. Most of them are clustered in the Deep South. In Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, and South Carolina, there is nothing stopping us from establishing a political base but our own lack of interest.
George Wallace campaigned on the same issue decades ago. We have been down this road before. It leads to conservatism and deracialization. No thanks. I don’t want “freedom of association.” I want the tough anti-miscegenation laws we used to have back.
Ron Paul is an anti-racist.
No, they are not. The 14th and 15th amendments have rendered the U.S. Constitution anti-racist as well.
Then we should focus our efforts on running racialist candidates at the state and local level. 41
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:16 | #
That’s because festering pustule knows where that road ultimately leads and is smart enough to turn away from it. A vote for Ron Paul in 2008 is on the same level as a vote for Barry Goldwater in 1964. The biggest mistake racialists ever made in the entire history of the United States was getting involved in the conservative movement. It would have been better to quit politics altogether than to become deracialized, braindead conservatives. 42
Posted by Robert ap Richard on Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:44 | # Fred and Scimitar, your examples of racially-aware candidates are not good enough; you are pointing out local and rare examples. As soon as any candidate gets national media attention, ANY racially-aware talk gets him demonized overnight. It is the government that is the tool of oppression against Whites. All racial quotas and all “hate-crimes” laws specifically target our ability to organize ourselves as Whites. Take away that power from the government and we’d be free once more. Ron Paul is the ONLY presidential candidate that would move us in this direction. If you are waiting for the perfect candidate to run nationally, you will indeed be disappointed for many, many years. In this political climate, you have to go with what works. Any racially-aware or active candidate talk would never even get on the ballot. 43
Posted by JB on Sun, 15 Jul 2007 03:15 | # Fred Scrooby please stop talking about JJR. 99 % of us are glad he and his childish antics are gone. And no, he wasn’t on our side. Remember those pictures of his son and his thai girlfriend ?
...Lawrence Auster ?? <cough, cough>
and he wasn’t simply a white racist, he was an overt anti-semite, an holocaust disbeliever and a militant atheist and a miscegenator who made two children with a chink woman before turning into a WN. But he said he would do whatever he could to kick illegals out of Alabama so his sins were forgotten. 44
Posted by JB on Sun, 15 Jul 2007 03:23 | # Lou Barletta (of Hazleton, PA) isn’t a racist but his anti-illegals law made him so popular that he recently won the election with something like 95 % of the vote. Any WN who wants to do something positive and productive should try to push his mayor to imitate Barletta’s actions or elect a new one. Don’t be overtly racial and don’t wear those WN symbols or anything, just talk and act like a normal white man and you’ll have the support of a majority of whites in your area 45
Posted by festering pustule on Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:56 | # “That’s because festering pustule knows where that road ultimately leads and is smart enough to turn away from it.” Yes, that’s right. Look, we are told to be realistic by some of the Paul supporters here. So, yes, let us be realistic. What are the chances that Ron Paul will be the GOP candidate in 2008? What are the chances he will be elected? If he were elected (do you really believe this?), what are the chances that Congress would follow through on his proposals, and that any of this would be stable through more than one electoral cycle? However, IS there utility in supporting national level (including congressional) candidates even if their chances of winning are slim or none? Yes….if they and their campaigns increase racial balkanization, inflame racial passions, enhance the “politics of exclusion”, and move more people to the extremes, one way or another. A campaign to create chaos and “monkey-wrench” multiculturalism. Ron Paul’s aracial libertarianism is _not_ going to do this. In a sense it is like Sailer’s citizenism, a move in the wrong direction. Mind you, if Paul were electable, and if a Paul election really would lead to a dismantling of America’s official multicultural apparatus - then one could have second thoughts. Unfortunately, that’s not the case, so the utility of his campaign would be the “positive” externalities it has on the establishment. And, it’s not enough. I don’t see the point of investing time, energy, and money on a candidate who BOTH: a) cannot be elected, and… Some would argue that a racialist candidate wouldn’t be allowed on the ballot - is this really true? How about starting, as Scimitar suggests, on the more local level, and going from there? Is it really impossible for Taylor to run for, say, Senator from Virginia on a third party candidacy? Note carefully: the aim is NOT to win, but merely to prevent the “conservative” aracial Republican from winning and, even more importantly, provoking racial chaos. Another point: libertarians and non-libertarian Paul supporters also miss the point that while, yes, the government is the biggest offender, there are many influential private entities enforcing diversity today (ABA, for example), and the problem is perhaps bigger than they realize. 47
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:21 | # JW, It is not impossible. Clearly, in a number of states, racialist candidates would be viable. There is utterly no reason we can’t start building a political base right now. We know from polling data that around 10% of whites in the U.S. still hold strong racial attitudes. The real number is almost certainly much higher because of intimidation. My home state of Alabama is a good example of this: Alabama Vote Opens Old Racial Wounds In 2004, a purely symbolic proposal to strike segregationist language out of the Alabama state constitution was actually defeated. Mississippi’s congressional elections, 2006 In 2006, Jim Giles ran as an independent candidate in the Mississippi 3rd Congressional District. He got 25,999 votes (16% of the total votes cast). What is the total membership of Stormfront - spambots included? Measuring the Difference Between White Voting and Polling of Interracial Marriage In 2000, Alabama became the last state to repeal its anti-miscegenation law. Approximately 50% of whites voted against repeal. This is highly significant. All the polling data we have shows that whites are much more likely to disapprove of miscegenation than to support its legal prohibition. In other words, well over 50% of whites in Alabama are racially conscious enough to oppose miscegenation. In 1998, South Carolina also repealed its anti-miscegenation law. 40% of whites voted against repeal. This suggests a majority of whites in South Carolina are racially conscious as well. In 2006, Larry Darby (an atheist who openly denies the Holocaust and has publically attacked “Jewish supremacism”) ran in the 2006 Democratic Primary for Attorney General of Alabama. He carried 33 of 67 counties and won 43% of the vote - in the Democratic primary in one of the blackest states in America. In 1991, David Duke ran Edwin Edwards for Governor of Louisiana. He got 671,009 votes or 38.8 percent of the total votes cast. According to Duke, 55% of whites in Louisiana voted for him. 48
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:30 | # Jews are allowed to form a community and exclude others because they are a favored race. It is unrealistic to expect a Euroman enclave to exist in the US under the current regime. Freedom of association is _not_ allowed us by “law” (“fair housing” laws and prohibiting consideration of race in the making of private contracts under the civil rights act of 1964) and the “law” is only really enforced when it comes to whites showing a preference for whites in the private decisions about among whom they will live and with whom they will enter into private contracts. Moreover, the relative intolerance by law enforcement toward white gangs (as well as the relative lack of predisposition for whites to form gangs) leads to blacks and hispanics being able to ethnically cleanse neighborhoods by relying on their criminal young men—who suffer less in prison due to their greater gang protection there. 49
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:15 | #
The same could be said of the BNP in Britain or the FN in France. If anything is true, an openly pro-white third party should have more success in the U.S. than anywhere else. Whites in the American South are still far more racialized than Europeans.
Giles, Duke, Darby and other dark horse candidates show that significant numbers of whites will still vote their racial interests when presented with a chance to do so - in spite of media intimidation. Unfortunately, American WNs have shown little interest in getting involved in mainstream politics, even when they enjoy enormous advantages over their European counterparts.
No, he isn’t. Tancredo voted against renewing the Voting Rights Act last year. Ron Paul has a “C” on immigration. Why vote for Ron Paul when you can vote for Tancredo? 1.) Tancredo would veto any destructive immigration legislation that might clear Congress. In fact, Tancredo recently came out in favor of a massive reduction of legal immigration as well. This is not to say that I am endorsing Tancredo or even plan to vote for him. It is simply inaccurate to say that Ron Paul is the only candidate who will move the country in a positive direction.
That’s what the Republicans always say: we got to stop Gore, got to stop Kerry, got to stop Hillary. Sorry, I am not buying this line of reasoning. It gave us eight years of George W. Bush. Giles, Darby, and Duke show that racialist candidates can get on the ballot and enjoy considerable success when they do so. 50
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:28 | # This isn’t 1964. People have 50 years of testing very thoroughly, with government support, the theories that led to the passage of the 1964 civil rights act. The only people left who support these theories are: 1) Extreme hypocrites. Ron Paul isn’t Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was a prototype of the Jewish neocon. He supported the war in Viet Nam and that is what lost him the election. Ron Paul opposes the war in Iraq. At this stage, Jews want the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights intrusions on private relationships. When Goldwater was running for office, Jews wanted the 1964 Civil Rights Act to dismantle America—despite Goldwater’s opposition to that act. Goldwater was simply a placeholder to let others come through and defeat freedom of association. Now, whether Ron Paul is a mere placeholder or not, the movement forming around him is momentous. These are feet on the ground reacting not just to having alternate sources of news and information via the Internet, but to having the government with the assistance of private concentration of wealth, rip from their arms their children and feed them to the fertility machines of other peoples. This is the sort of thing that after it has gone on for a full generation—entering the second—can produce war. Ron Paul is the last hope the current regime has of neutralizing those foot-soldiers but it will have to provide something far more substantial than a Goldwater conservatism and I don’t think it can. The Jews have lost men who really care about morality and can built a civilization from the ground up—those men are now going to do something and I doubt it is going to be within the political arena although they may start to realize their numbers within that arena. 51
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:48 | # Scimitar writes Ron Paul has a “C” on immigration. False. Ron Paul has a career “B” and recent “A-” according to Americans for Better Immigration. Essentially, Ron Paul’s history with the “Libertarian Party” did damage his voting record. The “Libertarian Party” was largely people who wanted free subsidy of their plantation property rights by others shedding their blood in defense of those property rights. That meant that they had a natural alliance with Hispanic nationalists. Paul’s “B” is very good for someone with a Libertarian Party background. And, no, the folks who occupied the “Libertarian Party” were not true libertarians for the simple and obvious reason that they were trying to get a subsidy of their nonsubsistence property rights while violating the property rights of other citizens by diluting citizenship through open borders. They were just proto-neocons like Goldwater. 52
Posted by Maguire on Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:54 | # Scimitar, “There is utterly no reason we can’t start building a political base right now.” I agree. But before starting this process it’s necessary to have clear goals in view for the short, middle and long terms. And one also needs to obtain an utterly objective and realistic view of the nature of the local political battlefield. The starting points for this are census tracts, registered voter databases and area specific economic data. Mindlessly imitating the campaign tactics of others on the ballot has been and will be counterproductive. Worst of all is to consciously drain money from white people to give to the Jewish dominated media for so-called ‘campaign advertising’. One might as well give 95% of your supplies to a military enemy and then wonder why you’re always losing each battle. The political arena is a minefield that has to be microscopically surveyed step by step, lest one wind up in prison on concocted charges supported by perjured police testimony. Or simply killed while these so-called police stand by. The first consideration is how to get on the ballot. Attempting to form a ‘political party’ ala the ‘White People’s Party’ is worse than pointless. Understand, you will be allowed to do this, although you won’t be allowed to control who registers themselves in your ‘Party’. Of course to participate in the ‘Party’s’ primaries and caucuses a voter will need to register as ‘WPP’ or whatever. The Regime loves it when useful idiots do its political police work for it, such as helping compile lists of local dissidents in this method. The intelligence name for this sort of activity is ‘honeytrap’. Here in the USA I believe the ‘Independent’ candidacy is the only way to go. David Duke’s experiences inside the GOP show what will happen. Ostensible ‘Republicans’ will openly align with nominal ‘Democrats’ in defense of the only current real political party and regime, which is the Jew Regime. And the hell with the opinions of the sheeple. You do however need a pre-existing small cadre to support this ‘Independent’ candidacy. Among the reasons is to provide credible witnesses to off-set possible perjured testimony used to fabricate criminal charges. The sub-human Antifa sewage will not stop short of this. The next question of many questions is what are the immediate campaign goals to be? Winning office is not immediately on the table, so forget about that. Other goals, more incremental, are definitely in reach. Maguire 53
Posted by Maguire on Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:18 | # James, “those men are now going to do something and I doubt it is going to be within the political arena although they may start to realize their numbers within that arena.” The political arena can - presently - still be used to leverage local recuitment and organization of such men and women. FYI, when I say ‘real political party’, I don’t mean dilettante assemblies such as Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, et al. I mean groups like the 1600s English Parliamentary Party, the Continental Congress, the French Third Estate, the Bolsheviks, the NSDAP and the Viet Minh. Here were people who knew what they were about. This was achieving the permanent political destruction of their enemies as organized groups, and consequent irrevocable Regime Change. Maguire 54
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:09 | # Worst of all is to consciously drain money from white people to give to the Jewish dominated media for so-called ‘campaign advertising’. One might as well give 95% of your supplies to a military enemy and then wonder why you’re always losing each battle. I can imagine an exception to that rule : Local advertising—not for campaign but for the formation of coalitions between people who can respect the foundational nature of freedom of association as the primordial human right. Because of the media/academia-induced mental debilitation most people live with it is necessary to specifically state a range of issues that should be decided “locally” ie: by local territories within which people live by mutual consent: * Allowing local racial preference (local preferences for some race(s) over others). Listing racial preference first gets around the problem of attracting hypocrites, idiots and ignoramuses. Of course, once you do this, you have also attracted the attention of the local politburo, but it is difficult to see how you can do stealth outreach without them being alerted. Moreover, you will probably end up with some FBI or ADL funded group sending in agents provocateur—so you had best ready yourself to be pretty intolerant of those who try to conspire to engage in “illegal” activity. (I quote “illegal” because it is clear the Founders in the Second Amendment considered armed rebellion to overthrow tyranny, such as we are under, to be legitimate, and any regime engaged in the violation of the primary interests of the people illegitimate.) 56
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 16 Jul 2007 01:50 | #
I hadn’t thought of that (thanks for reminding me), but his involvement Harry Browne’s open borders Libertarian Party is another reason not to vote for Ron Paul. Imagine the sort of people Paul would surround himself with in the White House. Bush, for example, has Jew Chertoff at Homeland Security. I’m not completely comfortable having libertarians taking over the executive branch. BTW, I noticed this morning that Ron Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. The gay marriage thing isn’t one of my big issues, but it just goes to show that “cultural preservation” isn’t at the top of Ron Paul’s to do list either. Basically, I can’t see why anyone would vote for Ron Paul when Tancredo is running. As I pointed out to Steve Edwards, stopping the mudslide from Latin America into the United States must take precedence over all other concerns. Imagine what the Border Patrol would be like under Tancredo or enforcement against employwers who hire illegal aliens. Tancredo is the most solid mainstream politician on immigration. If I were forced to vote for anyone, it would be for him. 57
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 16 Jul 2007 02:17 | #
Yes, I know. During the 1960s/1970s, George Wallace used the “freedom of association” argument to attack the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in his presidential campaigns. Wallace was a far stronger candidate than Ron Paul is today and he was openly racialist at the time.
In the 1968 presidential election, Wallace carried Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas and won electoral votes in North Carolina as well. He lost. In 1972, he ran for president again and won several Northern states in the Democratic primaries. As you say, this isn’t 1964. We are infinitely worse off today than we were then. Ron Paul is an anti-racist. His libertarian philosophy of government is aracial. More importantly, the Libertarian Party itself is open borders, anti-racist, anti-cultural preservation.
90% of Southern representatives in Congress voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 2004, Congress passed some kind of revolution to commemorate that piece of legislation. Ron Paul was the only man in Congress to vote against it. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html ^^ We don’t have the support in Congress to repeal the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968. We didn’t have the support to stop the renewal of the Voting Rights Act last year.
Their position on civil rights is identical. Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he thought it was an unconstitutional restriction on individual freedom. That’s also Ron Paul’s position. The significance of Goldwater is that millions of racialists, disaffected with the two major parties, bought into that line of reasoning and supported his candidacy in 1964. He carried several Southern states and Arizona. Many of them stuck around in the nascent “conservative movement.” Eventually, they came around to your stated view that freedom is all we need. Now, almost fifty years later, at least half of white Southerners have become de-racialized conservatives. Would you really have us go down that road again? Look before you leap!
That’s news to me. Jews have ceased to support the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Where?
If you haven’t noticed, the movement swelling up behind Ron Paul isn’t as comfortable as Ron Paul himself is with repealing civil rights legislation, not to mention other issues like immigration. 58
Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 16 Jul 2007 02:23 | # Imagine the sort of people Paul would surround himself with in the White House. I don’t know about “in the White House”, but it’s a safe bet that you and I would find a niche in his administration. 59
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 16 Jul 2007 02:31 | #
What is that single category? Look below. It is: Reduce Illegal Immigration BORDER CONTROL - Career In other words, the one thing Ron Paul would actually be in a position to do something about as POTUS. It is the job of the president to enforce the laws, not to craft legislation. Does anyone have any doubts about what Tancredo would do if he were in charge of the Border Patrol? Employers of illegal aliens? I’m not trying to knock you or James. I agree that Paul is the second best candidate. I’m simply saying: if we are going to reward any mainstream politician with our votes, it should be Tancredo, as he has been the quarterback of the immigration restrictionists in Congress. He has pulled the mainstream in our direction on that critical issue. We barely defeated comprehensive immigration reform a few weeks ago. It’s supporters have vowed to bring it up again in 2009. With Tancredo in the White House, we won’t have to worry about it for at least four years. 60
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:53 | # That’s news to me. Jews have ceased to support the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Where? I am speaking of course of Jews as a group and I’m not saying they’re activated the way they were when driving through the most pathological aspects such as conflating public with private choice/discrimination in the 1964 act. What has happened is a shift of the locus of control to the neocons, which represents the fruition of all Jewish activism in the US up to now. These neocons are not the Lubavitchers who can get away with setting up ethnically pure towns on the strength of favoritism toward Jews shown by selective enforcement of the Civil Rights Acts by government officials. They are crypto-Jews who are in control of vast amounts of centrallized power and wealth in both the public and private sectors, who have to compete with the likes of Obama, Powell, etc. Mere gated communities don’t solve their problems. They would much prefer to see others do the dirty work of repealing those sections of the Act that conflate public with private choice/discrimination, and their problems clearly aren’t as urgent as the less affluent, but they now basically understand that with their new position of power, conflating public with private choice/discrimination is no longer “good for the Jews”. 61
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:04 | # If you haven’t noticed, the movement swelling up behind Ron Paul isn’t as comfortable as Ron Paul himself is with repealing civil rights legislation, not to mention other issues like immigration. Ron Paul himself isn’t “comfortable” with abortion but he leaves it up to the states. The idea behind movements like this is that people make one simple compromise—which leaves all of them uncomfortable: We all agree not to use the power of the central government to enforce our preferences. Now, of course, there will be defectors. And, of course, as has been shown by the history of the civil rights movement’s betrayals of the principles of the Constitution, those betrayals will be by the minority ethnicities more than by the Euros. But the real issue is what happens when those defections occur after 50 years of failed experiments testing the theories upon which the civil rights movement’s betrayals of principle were founded? 62
Posted by jlh on Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:52 | #
My experience in talking with whites of my acquaintance over issues affecting white people is that most agree with everything we are saying here provided they are not made to embrace any “racist,” “white supremacist,” etc. positions. I also like the way Scrooby, whenever arguing the virtues of our positions, defines himself as “normal.” Additionally, it seems to me that this appeal to normalness is the key to awakening the presently slumbering racialism in whites. Scimitar details this aspect of things very nicely. Sorry if I’m off topic; just speaking in general terms. 63
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:51 | # Well, the labels “racist” and “white supremacist” are always going to be applied to people who are trying to reserve to themselves the choice of whether or not they associate with others of their own race. It’s sort of like a rapist will always claim a woman who rejects his rape is a man hater. Self fulfilling prophecy… This is why a race war for supremacy is highly likely… hypocritical Holocaustian supremacist aggression claiming that separatists are supremacists and that normal people are “racists”, so that the hypocrites can then “justify” doing all the supremacist racist things to whites they want—which they are now doing. It has nothing to do with use of words to communicate and everything to do with extended phenotypics of parasites. 64
Posted by jlh on Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:56 | # That’s all true enough, James; I was only speaking to the problem of how can we get people to realize they are already on our side. 65
Posted by Maguire on Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:34 | # http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/16/military-support-for-the-republican-candidates Uniting the active and veteran vote into a single self-aware bloc would be no small accomplishment. Ron Paul is the only candidate to have both voted against the Iraq War before it started and to support real border security. 66
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:33 | # Fred Thompson has hired extreme open-borders advocate Spencer Abraham( * ) to run his campaign! Unfrickingbelievable! — it just never ends, the other side’s battle to unwhiten this country. We think we’ve just won a skirmish, and we have, but the war goes on. (One would think this hire, by the way, utterly dooms Thompson’s chances for the nomination, the discontent being what it is these days, but stay tuned: the regulars over at Free Kool-Aid probably are a pretty good reflection of what rank-and-file Republicans are like these days. We’re living in an epoch where the unbelievable parades right before our eyes every day if not every five minutes ...) ( * Who, despite his name, looks, and extreme open-borders advocacy, isn’t Jewish — he’s of Arab extraction, whether Moslem or Christian I keep neglecting to look up, but he’s not Jewish) 67
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:14 | # Anti-immigration and staunchly anti-racist blogger, the passionate, fiery “Conservative Swede” (see my comments above, July 8 and 9) gets off a parting shot at MR.com in announcing he’ll be blogging way less often from now on, because “what’s the use?,” he seems to be saying. Well ... if he remains staunchly anti-racist, he’s got a point ... (Btw, why does he take several shots at Kalb in his rant? As far as I can see, it can only be because of Kalb’s classic paper, Anti-racism,” which he must view as an unacceptable attack on his own secular religion of ... anti-racism. He must consider Kalb’s paper a personal affront.) (Hat tip to Occidental Dissent.) 68
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:14 | # I happened to be re-reading this older thread just now when I noticed the link to Kalb’s classic essay, Anti-racism, given in my August 8th comment just above, isn’t working. Dunno what’s wrong with that “Pinc” site the link went to, but here‘s the essay over at Kalb’s site. (Enjoy!) 69
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:52 | # GC, foaming at the mouth, splashes his spittle on MR.com: http://westbiop.blogspot.com/2008/07/godless-capitalist-attacks-james-bowery.html Post a comment:
Next entry: On suggestibility
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsJames Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:54. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:12. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:34. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 06:42. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:01. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:52. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:23. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:07. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:39. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 17:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:20. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:01. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:31. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 12:52. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:21. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 05:25. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:49. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:37. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:24. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 21:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:16. (View) |
Posted by MB on Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:15 | #
“...if it had not been for the Civil War’s disastrous and illegitimate claim by plantation owners that they had a right to vote with their feet but their slaves did not.”
This is quite a contradiction to that “ultimate human right”, ain’t it? Unless you consider negro slaves to have been human, which the American founders did not.